Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00009)

Sept 2nd 1999

Dear Art:

Again I place some answers in CAPS at the end of some of your queries.

Dal

Dallas
dalval@nwc.net 

=============================================

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of The Clan
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 3:40 AM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Theos-World Response to Dallas


Dallas wrote on 8/26/99 ..in part:

>What I am trying to say is that since the days of HPB, who held the
>Movement together between the years 1875-1891 there have been
>divergences as those who assumed the responsibility for continuing
the
>movement can be seen (through their writings) to have diverged from
>what HPB wrote.  In fact, several have gone so far as to modify her
>statements claiming that they knew at least as much as she did (and
>the Masters), and could therefore "lead" those that "followed" into a
>system that might be simpler to understand.

Note Dallas, your remark "since the days of HPB who held the movemnet
together ...there have been divergences ... those who assumed the
responsibility for continuing the movement ... diverged from what HPB
wrote..."

If HPB did hold the movement together as you suggest, how could there
be
such divergences?


	DO NOT BLAME THE TEACHER FOR THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE PUPILS.  WE SEE
IT EVEN TO DAY.  EACH PUPIL APPROACHES WITH THEIR OWN MIX OF CHARACTER
AND DESIRE.  Some then apply to the teachings their "filters."  They
only absorb that which they are interested in, and do not give
adequate attention to the WHOLE philosophy.

HPB GAVE ATTENTION TO THE NEEDS OF A WHOLE ERA OF HUMANITY whose
development was at the change of a cycle that began around the time of
her teachings in 1875.  Theosophy and her words and ideas on behalf of
Theosophy were intended  to bring a change on the way of thinking
(Manas) and the way of cooperating and considering the needs of
others -- which is discrimination, wisdom and UNIVERSAL ETHICS in
practice (Buddhi).

Lay stress on UNIVERSAL ETHICS.

The Churches try to absolve individuals of their nagging sense of
continued responsibility.
(This is how they build their congregations.)  It is a gigantic
business, but it is not honest.

And if one believes that one can be vicariously relieved of "sin" --
then what the heck! Go out and sin some more and hope the Church and
Priest are right and you get it wiped off.  And to heck with those
whom you may have victimized -- they deserved it -- and you, an
escapee from justice (thanks to priestly absolution, or your
successful concealment) get away scot-free.  Does anyone think that is
right?

But this is nonsense -- fit for children and the ignorant only.  Even
the LAW (human laws and statutes) in almost every country recognize
the innate and continued responsibility of every human for their
choices and acts.  And the law when instigated and activated, acts
accordingly;  and juries and lawmen ever come back to the basic and
unwritten laws of equity, fairness and general justice for all -- no
Church absolution is recognized by the LAW.

------------------------------


And how could such divergences continue in those who assumed the
responsibility of continuing the movement?

	YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THEM AND CONSULT WHAT THEY WROTE.  I DO NOT
PRETEND THAT THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THEOSOPHY IN OUR RECENT 125
YEARS IS EITHER ENTIRELY "NICE" NOR DOES IT GIVE NECESSARILY A CLEAN
SLATE AND AN UNBLEMISHED CHARACTER TO MANY WHO HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE SUSTAINING OF THE THEOSOPHICAL "SHIP" AFTER HPB's DEATH.  IF
YOU STUDY A "DOCUMENTARY" HISTORY YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VERIFY THIS FOR
YOURSELF.  But that is not terribly important, if one's objective is
to determine if Theosophy has value.  Then the basis for its concepts
have to be grasped an applied rigidly with good logic.  [ see SD I pp
14-19]

BUT, DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF BLAMING EITHER HPB OR THEOSOPHY FOR
THOSE FAILURES OF HUMAN CHARACTER IN THOSE WHO SUCCEEDED HER IN TERMS
OF RESPONSIBILITY.  That is not logical.

-----------------------------


There were those who modified her statements and claimed they knew at
least
as much as HPB and the Masters did. I'm unsure who you mean Dallas,
can you
be more specific in your references?  Who do you mean?

	DALLAS :  SECURE A COPY OF Margaret Thomas' "THEOSOPHY or
NEO-THEOSOPHY"  It was published about 1923 and places in parallel
columns the statements that HPB made concerning theosophical basics
and those that were written by Leadbeater and A. Besant.  Then make up
your own mind.

THE SAME OUGHT TO BE DONE WITH ANYTHING THAT ANYONE WROTE OR NOW
WRITES.  DO THEY TALLY WITH THAT WHICH THEOSOPHY SAYS IS BASIC?

WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE FOR TRUE SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE NOT PROVED
THE VALUE OF ?  WE ARE ENTIRELY TOO CREDULOUS AND TRUSTING AND DAILY
THIS IS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE SLY AND THE UNSCRUPULOUS.

WHY BELIEVE ME?  FIND OUR FOR YOURSELF.  IF I SAY THAT THERE ARE
CHANGES EITHER I AM WRONG OR RIGHT -- ONLY YOUR STUDY CAN PROVE IT ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER.

-------------------------------------


Dallas wrote:

It is very difficult to
>determine who is right in these affairs unless one has as a
>preliminary a thorough knowledge of what HPB had to teach.
>In several ways Theosophy runs contrary to current views of
Religions,
>Sciences and Psychology.  If one has this knowledge of what Theosophy
>actually teaches, then it is easy to see what the gaps are, and how
to
>bring about a reconciliation.  In fact, I would say that there is a
>continuous attempt to do this -- not to notice and accentuate the
>differences, but to draw those things that are similar together more
>strongly.

What HPB had to teach... That is a mystery isn't it? What was HPB
really about?

	DALLAS:  I HAVE TRIED TO GIVE THIS VERY BRIEFLY.  THESE ARE

1.  God is not a being but a universal principle basic to all life.
Hence every being is at its core an INDESTRUCTIBLE IMMORTAL "Monad" --
the MONAD is made up of three things:  SPIRIT-WISDOM-MIND.  These form
the basis for reincarnation.

2.  Law (Karma) pervades the universe.  It is always fair and just and
provides the exact response that our hidden motives set into motion
when we feel, think, or act.

3.  The purpose of LIFE is to LEARN.  It is all made up of the
learning process -- that is EVOLUTION.

One may consider the great sweep of existence, starting with the
individual and immortal Monadic "Life-atom." It is an "immortal" in
perpetual motion, and one of its main attributes is that it never
forgets. Bring a mass of these together under law, and you provide one
of the more advanced Monads with a "form" in which it pursues its
evolution.  This applies to absolutely everything (to atoms, minerals,
plants, animals, humans and the super-human beings that we will
eventually become.)  It also applies in terms of range from the
uncountable mass of Monad-atoms in the Universe to planets, suns,
solar systems, galaxies, and ultimately to the furthermost confines of
UNIVERSALITY -- the BOUNDLESS ALL.  The Great LAW encompasses ALL.

The concept of immortality and total responsibility is a PRIMARY ONE
in Theosophy.  it is not a question of "Do you like it?"  It is a
question of fact -- something that we can prove logically for
ourselves. Theosophy points to the sources and basis of that logic.
If we use it it changes our way of thinking and acting forever.

---------------------------


It is the effect of the all-pervasive deific principle and the urge
innate in all beings to improve, to progress, to evolve.

In several ways Theosophy runs contrary to current views of Religions,
Sciences and Psychology... The reason Theosophy differs from current
thinking is that it developed over a hundred years ago. So no great
mystery
here...

	DALLAS:  IN MY ESTEEM THIS CONCLUSION IS WRONG.  AGE HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH FACT OR TRUTH.  THEY STAND ON THEIR OWN FEET.  Intellectually
and morally we are neither better nor worse than our ancestors,
because we were these ancestors in an earlier incarnation.  The
environment changes as it is impacted by the constant surge of ideas
and desires.  It is agreed that the language of our century among the
"unlearned" changes and alters.  Among the scholars and thinkers,
poets and true litterateurs, it changes not at all.  Are we to abandon
Shakespeare, Spinoza, Milton, Aeschulus, Descartes, Byron, the
Brownings, Einstein, Blake, Carlyle, Chaucer, Plato, etc., either
because they wrote in "mediaeval English" or a "dead language ?  The
language of ideas is far more important that constantly altering
colloquialisms.  Those of us who desire to profit from the writers and
thinkers of the past also make the effort to grasp their language so
that we may more surely understand the value of their wisdom, if any.
Who is afraid of spending a lot of time in rally learning -- and why
is there a fear of that kind?  Why are these small barriers erected?

 Karma gives us circumstance -- the exact results of opportunities
that we have chosen earlier.  We now have to deal with either our
fancies or our desires, for a more definite and regulated progress.

The main fact is that emotionalism and desire lead us nowhere.  We are
(as emotional beings) like the leaf of a tree that flutters and
vibrates in the slightest breeze of desire.  How do we acquire the
stability of the trunk ?  How do we determine the value of any desire?
The fact is that we have some doubts,  we ask and wonder if there is
something more substantial to life than emotion, sensation and
pleasure?  There is a nagging doubt that those lead the real thinking
man anywhere but to a series of boredoms when satiation has been
achieved -- his life then resembles the lives of the "jet-set" -- they
race from one excitement to the next with no further aim than to waste
time.  If we do have doubts then is this not important?  Important
because it indicates that we are not sure of their value.  How do we
become wise ?

--------------------------


I would suggest that science based on the experimental method has
achieved
a great deal in the past hundred years and should be given some
credit...
after all more discoveries have been made in the past century than in
past
history as we know it. I qualify "as we know it"...

	YES IT HAS -- BUT WHAT I SAID IS THAT NATURE HAD IT ALREADY MAPPED
OUT.  SCIENCE FUMBLES AND TRIES TO GUESS AT NORMS, BUT IT DOES NOT
TAKE KARMA OR INDIVIDUAL MOTIVE INTO ACCOUNT.  THERE IS A MORAL
UNIVERSE THAT LIES INSIDE AND BELOW THE VISIBLE PHYSICAL AND IT IS
CAUSATIVE -- THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, AND THEN SEEN AND USED.

SCIENCE STUDIES EFFECTS.  THEY CANNOT IDENTIFY CAUSES.  WHAT IS LIFE,
ELECTRICITY, MAGNETISM, A THOUGHT, A DESIRE?  --  ALL EXPLANATIONS ARE
ASSERTIVE OF OBSERVED RESULTS, OF PHENOMENA, AND THEY DO NOT SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THOSE PHENOMENA, NOR DO THEY EXPLAIN IN
MAN WHAT IS THE WILL, OR THE VOLITION, OR THE POWER OF CHOICE -- DO
THEY ?

-------------------------


I agree with you that it appears easy to "fill the gaps" with a
knowledge
of theosophy, but what do we mean here... the gaps ... To what are you
refering? So who is doing the reconciling here between say modern
science
and theosophy... I assume you mean the theosophists.

	NO I MEAN SCIENCE -- THE THEOSOPHIST IS WAY AHEAD OF THE AVERAGE
SCIENTIST, NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE HE MAY BE IN HIS OWN SMALL SPECIALTY
OF CAREFUL MEASUREMENTS.

GENERALISTS ARE NEEDED WHO WILL RECONCILE SEVERAL OR ALL SCIENCES AT A
STROKE.  WHAT UNITES ?  THAT IS IMPORTANT, AND THE TRUE THEOSOPHIST
AIMS TO DISCOVER THIS.  HE IS WELL AWARE THAT HE IS AN IMMORTAL, AND
GIVEN THE SUCCESSION OF INCARNATIONS, HE REALIZES THAT EVENTUALLY HE
WILL FIND HIMSELF IN ONE WHERE THIS BECOMES COMPLETELY CLEAR.  IN THE
MEANTIME HE WORKS TO CLEAR UP HIS MANY KINDS OF PERCEPTIVE AND
APPERCEPTIVE THOUGHTS.

--------------------------------------


>For instance, and to me this is important.  HPB speaks of the ASTRAL
>BODY and not the "etheric body."  Why the change of emphasis?  Who
>originated that?  What does it do to Theosophy to make a change from
>HPB's teaching to something else, even if it be considered to be
>"minor ?"

A major problem Dallas is that we're dealing with an area that is
nebulous
at best.Pardon me for saying this Dallas but you read HPB like the
pastors
of old read the King James Version from the pulpit. You hang on her
every
word. Where did HPB develope her concepts of what an astral or etheric
body
is? I would humbly suggest that her concept was derived from a mix of
nineteenth century spiritualism, Samkhya philosophy, and Tibetan lore.
What
does it do to Theosophy to make a change in emphasis? My own view is
that
theosophy does change... every thing changes Dallas... we are in a sea
of
change from moment to moment ... even theosophy.


	DALLAS:  SORRY BUT I HAVE NO INTENTION OF BEING A PASTOR TO ANYONE.
I SPEAK AS I THINK FOR MYSELF.  IF OTHERS DESIRE TO FIND OUT WHY I SAY
THE THINGS I DO, THEN I TRY TO MAKE MY THOUGHT PROCESS VISIBLE AND
CLEAR.  I AM VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN EVERYONE DOING THIS ON THEIR OWN.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAT IS SURE AND FREE OR TRUSTWORTHY.  THERE ARE
NO "SHORT-CUTS."  EACH ONE OF US HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
DEVELOPING ONE'S OWN ASSURANCES AND BASES.  BUT, ONE CAN CHOOSE TO
REFER FREQUENTLY TO ANOTHER OR SEVERAL OTHERS WHO SEEM TO HAVE
PROGRESSED FURTHER THAN WE HAVE.  I HAPPEN TO CHOOSE HPB, AND REPORT
TO OTHERS THE VALUE THAT I TRACE IN HER WRITINGS.  I COULD JUST AS
EASILY QUOTE BUDDHA, KRISHNA, JESUS, PLATO, ETC....  THEY HAVE ALL
EXPRESSED THE SAME ROOT IDEAS. -- OF COURSE IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND
LANGUAGES.

	IF YOU READ "ISIS UNVEILED" -- YOU WILL SEE  WHAT I MEAN.   OF COURSE
SHE HAD TO USE THE TERMINOLOGY AND THE WORDS THAT WERE CURRENT AMONG
PEOPLE AROUND HER, IF SHE WAS TO MAKE ANY "BRIDGE" TO THE UNDERLYING
THEOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS AVAILABLE TO THEM -- AND LATELY, TO US.

NO I DO  NOT CONSCIOUSLY PARROT HPB's WORDS, THOUGH I USE THEM,
PERHAPS TOO OFTEN, BECAUSE TO ME, THEY COVER THE IDEAS AND CAUSES THAT
SHE DEALS WITH, WITH ADMIRABLE CLARITY.

SANKHYA, TIBETANISM, BUDDHISM, CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, TAOISM,  ETC.,
THESE ARE ALL DERIVED FROM THEOSOPHY -- WHICH IS FAR MORE PRIMITIVE AS
A PHILOSOPHICAL BASE FOR DESCRIBING THE PHILOSOPHICAL-RELIGIOUS SOURCE
OF THEIR MORE RESTRICTED CONCLUSIONS.  THEIR VERBIAGE HAS BEEN
PROCESSED AGAIN AND AGAIN BY THEIR ADHERENTS, SO AS TO MAKE IT MORE
PALATABLE TO THE MEN OF SUCCEEDING ERAS.  JESUS' ARAMAIC WAS
TRANSLATED INTO GREEK, THENCE INTO LATIN, AND FINALLY IN A VARIETY OF
EDITIONS INTO ENGLISH.

WHAT ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS, REGARDLESS OF THE VENEER OF SOME
DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE CULLED FROM ANY ONE OF THE THEOLOGIES OR THE
SCIENCES OR PHILOSOPHIES ?  LETS GET DOWN TO THE BARE BONES.

WHAT I MEAN IS :  WHERE ARE THE FACTS ON WHICH ONE IS GOING TO CHECK
ANY OF THESE MANY WAYS OF SAYING THE SAME THING?

--------------------------


Can one be a theosophist and not agree with HPB, or hold different
thoughts
and speak different words? I think so. I most sincerely in my heart of
hearts believe so. Otherwise Dallas, we are trying to reproduce HPB
everywhere at all times in all people... replicating her thoughts and
ideas
constantly! What kind of hell is that?  What happened to an original
idea?
Why can't anyone disagree or challenge? Sounds like you want to spray
buddhi with concrete so it is frozen in time! Nothing like that is
possible.

ONE NEED NOT USE HPB AS A QUOTATION BASE.  I DO BECAUSE I HAVE REALLY
STUDIED HER FOR THE PAST 50 OR MORE YEARS, AND HAVE FOUND THAT WHAT
SHE OFFERED WAS ACCURATE.

BUT MY CONVICTION NEED NOT BE YOURS.

YOU AND I USE IN WRITING DIFFERENT WORDS.  WE SEEK TO PASS IDEAS
BETWEEN US.

HPB TO ME, HAS A GOOD AND RATHER DEFINITE WAY OF PRESENTING THE
CONCEPTS OF THEOSOPHY.  THEY DO NOT BOTHER ME AS THEY MIGHT SOMEONE
ELSE.  IF YOU WISH TO FORGET THAT I QUOTE HER, OR OTHERS, OR SPEAK ON
MY OWN, THEN DO SO.

A SOURCE SUCH AS HPB HAS ONLY RELEVANCE TO THOSE WHO ARE CONVINCED
THAT WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY WAS VALUABLE.  In other words don't let her
name be a barrier or a filter.  I may over-use it, that makes me
neither right nor wrong.  The accuracy of my thinking has to be
checked based on the fundamental ideas which I use as a basis to offer
my statements.  If those fundamentals are not grasped, what can I say
or do in addition to that which I have to offer.  They become the
considerations of other minds.  And I recognize that there may be
differences of education and culture which are minor barriers.


--------------------------------

Fraternalmente,


Art Gregory

----------------------------

AND EVERY GOOD WISH BACK TO YOU TOO

Dal

=======================




-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.