Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00117)

In a message dated 9/1/99 6:44:25 AM, lgregory@discover.net writes:

>Dallas rote 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?

I hate to interfere here, but when I see a logical discrepancy coming from a 
misunderstanding I must comment. I think Dallas was speaking of those who 
took over the movement AFTER HPB could no longer hold it together (since she 
had gone to Devachan).
>
>And how could such divergences continue in those who assumed the
>responsibility of continuing the movement?

They were the ones (Besant, Leadbeater, etc.) who took the opportunity of 
HPB's death and the isolation of WQJ to divert the movement (from bases 
outside the US) and change its focus to a "Christianized" version of 
theosophy.  This, in direct contradiction to HPB's contention that 
Christianity and its vicarious atonement theology was the antithesis of 
theosophy -- except in the mostly ignored teachings of its supposed founder 
-- whose denial of him being and adept Hebrew-Essene rabbi (priest, guru, 
teacher), and of his teachings of reincarnation and karma, has been the 
consistent cry of this bastardized, idol worshipping religion since the Holy 
Roman Empire.  Not to say that many later spin-offs and smaller sects of 
Christianity who try to follow the teachings of their Christ figurehead have 
been as pernicious as the "Roman Catholic" divisions -- but they still are 
burdened with a profound ignorance of the "fundamental truths" upon which 
Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings relied upon, as well as the scientific philosophy 
behind those teachings.  Also, Alice Bailey, using the same Christian base 
along with a spurious "mysticism" that HPB decried, managed to break off a 
large potential following of the TM, represented by the original TS.  As did 
Rudolph Steiner and his anthroposophic viewpoint with its  stress on physical 
and social perfection before spiritual understanding.  The same could be said 
of Gurdjieff, Ouspenski, and other Blavatsky initiated "good guys" as well as 
her "dugpa" spinoffs like Crowley, and even Hitler.  They all used HPB's 
misinterpreted statements as the basis of their deviations from the original 
teachings.  
>
>>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 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?
>
>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...

How could that be -- when theosophy is as old as the schools pf Pythagorus 
and Plato, and was first fully codified by the Neo-Platonists, Porphyry and 
Plotinus, ages before science was even a gleam in the eyes of the so called 
"reductive" scientists who followed Gallileo? 
>
>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"...

Science did nothing, with their reductive methods (examining the particular 
to determine the nature of the general) but obscure the real truths of 
universal origin and the identity of all aspects and attributes of the 
universe with each other.  They have completely overlooked the cyclic field 
laws (based on the wave nature of the universal forces) that govern the 
subtler, "qualitative" energies and intelligence of the universe -- in favor 
of their quantitative "quantal" particles and their "physical" (material) 
laws.  What has these physical laws and equations, such as E=mc^2, got to do 
with the laws of the astral, mental, or other "etheric" or "akashic" planes 
of energy?  The only credit that modern scientists deserve is that they gave 
us a sufficient understanding of the correlation of forces on the material 
plane to give us all the wonderful high technologies we have today... 
Especially, those that enable us to discuss in cyberspace such erudite 
matters as the science and technologies of mind and consciousness and our 
individual relationship with the primal "God" forces on both yjeir positive 
and negative levels.  Unfortunately, "material scientists" have hit their 
"brick wall" when they attempt to explain the nature of consciousness and its 
causal linkage with matter.  For example; How could any theosophist believe, 
as science generally does, that mind, consciousness and awareness are 
essentially epiphenomena of the brain's complex neural circuitry?  
>
>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.
>
>>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.

There is a much greater difference between pastors who reads the bible with 
blind belief and those that quote HPB as the only source of theosophical 
teaching covering a scientific and religious philosophy whose acceptance or 
rejection is conditional only on the understanding of the individual student. 
 As HPB said herself, she did not take the position of the one who knows, but 
simply as a messenger who transmits teachings that the Masters gave as 
fundamental and immutable truths -- which they say had been accumulated and 
consolidated over many thousands of years of study and meditation by advanced 
beings we call Masters and Adepts.  The one thing that doesn't change are the 
fundamental laws or "principles" upon which All theosophical teachings are 
based.
>
>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.
>
Certainly one can be a theosophist and not agree entirely with HPB.  But, in 
doing so, one must be as logical and consistent in their refutations as she 
was in her presentations of fundamental truths and their correlations -- that 
are corroborated by so many thousands of masters and adepts both prior and 
since her time, and appears to be self evident to all those who have learned 
how to control their minds and think for themselves.  So far, no one that I 
know or heard of, has been able to successfully refute any of the 
philosophical scientific knowledge given us by HPB -- including the 
fundamental principles in their full understanding.  Each one who attempts 
it, has always been but a single voice in the wilderness, and usually garbles 
up the consistency and logic of the scientific philosophy of theosophy beyond 
reasonable comprehension -- and then presents their conclusions as something 
to be accepted on purely blind belief.  Surely, one can speak different words 
to refer to the same things or ideas... For language (and every other "thing" 
or "conception") always changes... But, *fundamental truths* that fit 
together with each other as closely as a fine cut jigsaw puzzle, NEVER 
change.  Truth can never be modified or changed, and the conclusions in the 
SD based on such truths, as presented a priori, can only be argued against by 
referring to those fundamental truths, themselves.  Truths, that even the 
most modern sciences cannot refute.  In fact, those at the cutting edge of 
"post modern" multidimensional quantum cosmological science, such as 
"string", "M-brane", and Zero-point energy theorists are almost ready to 
accept the fundamental principles, almost exactly as HPB presented them.    
So, It isn't HPB that we are trying to reproduce in the mind of basically 
ignorant mankind, but simply the inarguable teachings she gave us so clearly, 
concisely, and conceptionally consistent.  And, it isn't "replicating her 
thoughts" that's the problem... The real problem is representing her writings 
as the original and only authentic source of theosophical teachings in the 
West, without inadvertently garbling it in the less-than-adept mental 
translations we arbitrarily make through our inability to thoroughly absorb 
and understand the essence of these teachings. .  All the  contradictory 
"ideas" that came later, and, unfortunately, are still coming, are simply 
individual opinions that have little or no foundations in any fundamental 
TRUTH.  Remember, the "three fundamental truths" are really one consistent 
and interrelated universal TRUTH that encompasses many different levels of 
the Cosmos' predestined evolution... And, no true "reality" can be explained 
without having it grounded solidly in each ONE of these truths, as well as in 
ALL of them, together, as a unity.

One can always challenge such truths, but, then, without deep thought and 
study, how would one be able to recognize the rightness or wrongness of the 
conclusions based on them?  And, on what basis would one be able to replace 
such truths with a more logical and consistent basis of reality.  "New 
Ideas", have nothing to do with such truths other than that they must be 
based on them.  That is, if they are to work or be of any use.  To equate 
fundamental "truths" with "ideas" not based on such truths, is like 
comparing, actual reality with science-fiction and fantasy.  

Let's face it, theosophists MUST accept the three fundamentals as the basis 
of all subsequent theosophical conclusions.  In this context, there's 
certainly nothing wrong with using "the language of THIS age" to explain 
them.  But, there CANNOT be any way that we could change their *meaning* 
without destroying the whole basis of theosophy.  Therefore, theosophist who 
practice brotherhood and altruism with true compassion, and accept the ideas 
of karma and reincarnation along with the fundamental principles, have no 
need to understand the scientific correlations that they bring about.  But, 
doing so, can give them a much more solid ground upon which to base their 
beliefs and their "practice."  Science, even today, has a long way to go to 
give up its materialistic biases and cross the gap between matter, mind and 
consciousness... And, we should all be able to see that theosophy's 
"Principles" are the only foundation that can explain such interrelationships 
-- both consistently, as well as "scientifically" -- without equivocation.  

Respectfully, In brotherhood

Leon Maurer
leonmaurer@aol.com
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
(A preliminary look-- from a theosophical point of view -- at a new 
scientific paradigm explaining perception, mind, and consciousness, and the 
holistic mechanisms of the causal transformations of cosmic energies between 
and through these multi-dimensional "coenergetic fields," and their 
correlations with the three  dimensional fields of "matter.")


>
>
>
>
>
>lgregory@discover.net

-- 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.