Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tt00048)

In a message dated 11/14/99 11:05:05 AM, RAMADOSS@eden.com writes:

>Let me add this novice's comments.
>
>1. Either the Adepts who were behind HPB knew the doctrines first hand
>or not.
>
>2. If if is accepted that They knew them first hand, what she wrote was the
>best possible presentation with corroboration from other written material.
>
>3. Only someone who has first hand knowledge can either confirm or dispute
>the doctrines behind what HPB tried to present to the world.
>
>4. We all like to hear such a first hand feedback.

What do we imagine "first hand feedback" to be?  Even the Adepts had to hear 
the teaching from someone else... Who got it, second hand, from someone 
else... Ad infinitum.  That is, unless we consider that, first hand knowledge 
comes directly through our intuition.  And, to be valid, must be entirely 
consistent with the three fundamental principles.  If so, then any 
information given us by HPB, as well as that given her by the Adepts--if 
tested against the fundamentals, confirmed by our intuition and checked by 
our reason--can be considered "first hand knowledge."  

As for the scriptural references given by HPB... Those cannot be considered 
first hand knowledge when translated, or even originally written down by 
anyone other than the original teacher--since they have come to us through 
the hands of others. And, in many cases, have been distorted by non-adept and 
fundamentally ignorant translators, priests or gurus with individual biases 
and personal agendas.  

Therefore, the only information that should be considered as worthwhile for 
study and intuitive evaluation in theosophy are the so called "truths" of 
cosmo- and anthropogenesis, reincarnation, karma, cosmic evolution, etc., 
that are entirely consistent with the three fundamental principles.  
Therefore, no scriptures written by others can have any referential validity, 
unless the teachings contained in them are similarly consistent with those 
principles.  Consequently, knit picking about their usefulness for further 
study, or as anything more than confirmation of the Masters teachings, are of 
no real value unless such considerations add to a better understanding of the 
doctrine transmitted to us by them through HPB.  At the same time, the 
difficulty of trying to transmit such complex, multidimensional concepts that 
require the use of right brain nonlinear visualization, using a linear, left 
brain oriented language as limited as English, should be carefully evaluated. 

Is it any wonder why HPB's writings are so convoluted and redundant, and rely 
so much on repetitive confirmations based on the scriptures of every 
organized religion from the beginning of antiquity?  The purpose of this was 
not only to help convince the secular as well as the religious world of the 
validity of the theosophical teachings... But also, so that future 
theosophical teachers could understand where those steeped in religious 
biases were coming from--as well as to enable them to counteract any 
arguments that might be put forth in contradiction of theosophy--using the 
arguer's own scriptures.

LHM

-- 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.