Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00129)

Sept 9th 1999

Some notes in CAPS inserted below.

Dal

Dallas
dalval@nwc.net 
===============================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of LeonMaurer@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 2:01 AM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Response to Dallas on HPB



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

>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 movement
>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?

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

Dallas
	MY MEANING IS THAT THEY (THOSE WHO SURVIVED HPB AND WHO ASSUMED
RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEADING IT) CEASED TO FOLLOW AND USE THAT WHICH HPB
HAD TAUGHT.

	AND THEY CREATED GRADUALLY, THEIR OWN OPINIONATED VIEWS AND THOSE
BECAME GRADUALLY ADOPTED AS "THEOSOPHICAL."

	LOOK AROUND AT THE RECENT POSTINGS TO THEOS-TALK , AND ASK YOURSELF:
"DOES ANYONE NOW HONOR HPB AND THE MASTERS BY SERIOUSLY STUDYING
THEM?"  Of course this need only be answered by each for themselves.
But the quality of the postings reveals the quality and the nature of
their devotion to Theosophy.

	AS TO THE DIVERGENCES -- CHECK THEM FOR YOURSELF.

	See Margaret Thomas' THEOSOPHY or NEO-THEOSOPHY" as an example of
where and how these changes occurred.  They have been conveniently
placed in parallel columns for such comparison to be easily made.

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


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).
---------------------------------------

Dallas
	AT THE RISK OF ANNOYING SOME I WILL SAY THAT IT IS MY CONVICTION THAT
AN ADEPT OF HPB's ATTAINMENTS DOES NOT GO TO "DEVACHAN."

	THE ONE CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT EXTINGUISHED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AND
IN FACT SHE DEFINED IT BY SAYING :

	"That for several years I will not be able to help it (the T S) on,
and steer its course, because 	I will have to act in a body which will
have to be assimilated to the Nirmanakaya..."

	IT WOULD PROVE DIFFICULT UNLESS WE ARE PRIVY TO THE PLANS OF THE
ADEPTS, AND TO THE WORKING OF THE LAW OF KARMA,  TO KNOW EXACTLY 	WHEN
AND WHERE HPB MAY HAVE OR WILL 	"RETURN" TO DO WHAT SHE SAYS 	SHE WILL
DO.  IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT SHE CAME AN DID HER WORK AND 	THEN LEFT ?
AND WE WERE UNAWARE OF IT?  OR PERHAPS, WE BECAME 	AWARE OF IT ONLY
SOME TIME AFTER SHE AGAIN "LEFT "

	IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD ASK, IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT BATCH OF
POSTINGS:  DOES THE PRESENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE TS WANT HPB TO 	RETURN?
DOES ANYONE WANT HER TO RETURN?

	Dallas

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

>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
	YOU HAVE NAMED ABOUT EVERYONE THAT I HAD IN MIND.

	The main thing to remember is that although these became "leaders" of
some kind, it was those who "followed" who gave them prominence.

IT IS NOT FAIR TO HPB TO START BLAMING HER AND THE TEACHINGS OF
THEOSOPHY WHICH ARE UNIVERSAL AND FACTUAL FOR THE FAULTS OF THOSE WHO
MADE THEM INTO AN ILLOGICAL HASH.

I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE EXAMPLES.  THIS IS ANALYSIS.  WHILE NOT
BEGGING THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO DO THAT KIND OF WORK OURSELVES.  BUT
IN SO DOING IT IS ESSENTIAL TO KNOW WHAT THEOSOPHY IS AND TEACHES.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY PUBLISHED IN THESE PAGES AN OUTLINE OF WHAT
THEOSOPHY TEACHES.

1.  SD I pp 14 - 19  3 FUNDAMENTALS

	1.  GOD IS NOT A BEING BUT A UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE.  Being universal IT
is in each of us as a basis, as it is in every other being ranging
between the minutest Atom and the greatest extent of the UNIVERSE.  IT
is non-physical.  To us it is a paradox, yet essential for our
existence.
Theosophy uses the word MONAD to indicate the immanence in all
manifested Nature.

	2.  LAW PERVADES THE WHOLE OF MANIFESTATION AND SERVES TO ADJUST THE
INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL PROGRESS OF EVERY BEING (from the Atom to the
Universe).  LAW AND LAWS CANNOT BE TWISTED OR BENT.  THE UNIVERSE AS A
WHOLE IS ENTIRELY RESPONSIVE AND SENSITIVE.  KARMA IS THE RESULT OF
WORKING WITH OR AGAINST THE UNIVERSAL NATURAL LAWS.  HUMAN MINDS ARE
CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THIS AND OF COOPERATING

	IN MANIFESTATION, LAW IS INTELLIGENT AND CONSCIOUS MOTION AND
VIBRATION -- IT IS ILLUSTRATED IN THE SWING OF THE PENDULUM BOB, OR
THE REVOLUTION OF ALL THE STELLAR BODIES, INCLUDING THE EARTH.  IT
DEMONSTRABLE THROUGH CONTRASTS  (dark/light;  hot/cold;  low/high;
activity/repose;  life/death;  etc...)

	OBVIOUSLY THERE IS THAT WHICH IS UNAFFECTED BY THE CONTRASTS AND THE
VIBRATION OR THE MOTION, AND HENCE IT IS ABLE TO PERCEIVE THEM AS
EXPERIENCE.  IT MAY BE DESIGNATED THE WITNESS, THE PERCEIVER.  IT IS
THE CAPACITY TO BE AWARE OF AND TO OBSERVE CHANGE.  HENCE THIS QUALITY
OF STABILITY IN THE MIDST OF CHANGE IS A VITAL POINT TO GRASP AS
PRESENT IN EACH OF US AND THIS RELATES TO ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL ASPECTS
OF THE MENTAL FUNCTION -- A N ACTIVE AND EVOLVING  FACULTY OF
HUMANS -- BUT, IT IS PRESENT IN ALL BEINGS IN POTENTIAL WITHOUT
EXCEPTIONS.

	3.  EVOLUTION IS UNIVERSAL.  IT INCLUDES AGAIN ALL BEINGS, FROM THE
ATOM TO THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE.  AS STATED ABOVE IT RELATES TO THE
EXPERIENCE OF THE MONAD AS IT PASSES (as an eternal Perceiver) THROUGH
ALL THE EXPERIENCES THAT A CYCLE OF MANIFESTATION CAN PROVIDE, AND
BEYOND.

Next I would add:

	4.  CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE is  UNIVERSAL.  Every being has an
extraordinary history as an immortal and retains a record of that.
Our World has its own historical storehouse.  So has the Universe. All
is interblended.

	5.  7 groups, or qualities of matter are discernable in every being.
Theosophy provides a list of these and explanations for their being.
The end objective of the development of mankind as units is to produce
in each an awareness of UNIVERSAL WISDOM -- the ability to locate,
correlate and apply that wisdom/record which represents the totality
of experience.  Hence the concept of the Lodge of the Adepts, the
Buddhas, the Rishis, etc...These are humans who have transformed
themselves into "Super-humans."

	5.  Within the "physical" lies the ASTRAL BODY.   it is an
electro-magnetic mold, or model on which the physical molecules are
arranged.  This is a universal pattern or infra-structure, and it will
be fund to underlie every physical object. Kirillian photography
illustrates this.

	6.  The gift of the Mental faculty is one which is provided to those
forms that physical evolution has developed for a human mind to live
and evolve in. further.  The enlightenment and teaching of the mind so
as to evoke its independence and freedom is a process that is
universally conducted by those who have more experience in passing on
the practices and training  of the methods of attention, coordination,
will, memory, imagination, etc..  This is done by parents and teachers
for children as they grow.  This process does not stop in adult life
but always continues.

	7.  The MONAD in man, being immortal, serves as a repository for all
its experience.  Hence the doctrine of REINCARNATION is offered as an
explanation for the sense of individuality ( or of Ego ) and the
freedom of every human mind.  Genius, talent, (or their lack)
aversion, ineptness, desires, passions, etc... all the various degrees
of mental and emotional capacity are thus related to experience in
past lives (and to our earlier days in this one)  as well as the
nature of conscious choices that the Intelligence ( the Ego)
constantly makes.

	8.  The physical man is thus the vehicle of a Mind.  Part of its
environment includes a well developed emotional and desire nature.
The brain is a tool for the Mind to use.

Considering these few points and those that may be derived from them,
one can see that Theosophy does the following:

	1.  It abolishes the cause of sin -- because of the capacity that
each one has to understand the operation of Law in himself as a part
of Nature.

	2.  Every act, right or wrong, produces its own reward in time --
caused by the operation of the impartial laws of nature that
coordinate the evolution of all beings.

	3,  Everyone frames his own destiny by voluntary decisions.  He can
also alter it my mitigating the effects that he desires to change.

	4.   Theosophy affirms the existence of an ethical/moral
consciousness innate in every human, and thus considers the Universe
and our Earth environment as being essentially a moral one.

	5.  It holds that the concept of the ONE SPIRIT unites all things
into a Universal Brotherhood.

Dallas

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


>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 OUTLINE THAT ABOVE.

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


>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?

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

Dallas
	THE ORIGINAL TEACHINGS OF THOSE YOU MENTION WOULD HAVE TO BE IN LINE
WITH THEOSOPHY.  That which is altered in them is not only the need
for translation into today's languages, but the fact that their
"followers" may have modified the stress and intention of the words or
teachings of those originals.

Dal
===========================================

>
>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.

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

Dallas
	WHAT I MEAN IS THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE RUNS UNDER EXACT
LAWS.

	NATURE IS EVERYTHING AND CONTAINS EVERYTHING.

	THE SCIENTIST EXAMINES AND ANALYSES THOSE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THEIR
EXISTENCE AND WORKING.  -- THIS IS A VERY BROAD STATEMENT.

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


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?

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

Dallas
	EVERYTHING YOU WRITE JUST ABOVE SEEMS QUITE ACCURATE T ME.  IT IS A
DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS..

	THE "BRICK WALL" WILL DISAPPEAR IF THE ASTRAL UNIVERSE IS DISCOVERED
AND THEN EXAMINED AS THE CAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL.

>====================

>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.

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

Dallas

	PLEASE DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.  MY REGARD FOR AND RELIANCE ON
WHAT HPB HAS OFFERED US ALL IS ONLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT I HAVE
TESTED IT AND FOUND IT VALID.

	AS SUCH I OFFER MY TESTIMONY.

	I ASK OTHERS TO VERIFY THIS INDEPENDENTLY OF ME.

	I DO NOT EXPECT TO SEE AND READ CRITICISM THAT SEEMS TO HAVE MORE OF
AN "OPINION" AS A BASE THAN ACTUAL FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED
TO BE WRONG.

	WHAT HAS HPB OFFERED US THAT IS EITHER WRONG OR HARMFUL ?

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


 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.

		EXACTLY,    Dallas

>
>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...

	DALLAS  AGREED

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. .

	Dallas	VERY TRUE

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.


	Dallas	AGREED

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

DEAR LEON  -- MANY THANKS  DALLAS.

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




>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 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.