Theos-Talk Archives (February 2000 Message tt00072)

Feb 25

Dear Dennis:

As I read your letter and response I see that I did not make my
point clear.

You ask about  HPB and her work.  She was emphatically not a
"shell."  She was an Adept and worked as such.  There are
apparently times when an Adept can allow a Brother Adept to use
as their "vehicle" the body that one has to use in any one
incarnation.  But the "owner of the body"  does NOT lose
consciousness -- only "stands aside" for a while as HPB describes
it clearly.  It is unimportant that you may interpret things you
study differently from myself.  That is always true among
students.  But trying to make statements fit one's prejudgments
is not part of the learning process. as I see it.  No one can
afford to study Theosophy selectively and according to ones
predetermined aims, interests or prejudices.  Or that study will
prove only a mirror of the personal bias one has imposed.  al
that has been excluded will be seen by others, who will conclude
that the and statements made by that individual are limited by
his selected and personal "filter."

What is important is THEOSOPHY as a body of knowledge that we can
test independently.  Who or how it was recorded does not matter
in the least.  It is a record of IDEAS and a STATEMENT OF
HISTORICAL FACTS.  How else can the "golden grain" be sifted from
the shaft of useless errors?

It is totally unimportant as to "who" did what in providing the
teachings of Theosophy.   They are provided for us to study,
check and verify on our own.  Obviously while we may appreciate
the statements that  HPB or the Masters made, who they were, and
how they made them available has no bearing on the accuracy or
the value of the information.

Olcott and others who were contemporary of HPB and watched her at
work made a record of what they were interested in and saw.  But
they apparently were not able in all cases to go BELOW the events
and ask themselves why things were done as they were.  They got
"stuck" on the wonder and the phenomenal side.  They did not seem
to value the profundity of the philosophy.

I would say we have an advantage in the fact that we can survey
and study the whole of the philosophy.  We are not bound by the
methods used (we were not there).  Hence we only have the record
of how others saw them , and from that, how  they drew their
conclusions -- correct or incorrect.  If we use that as our "peg"
on interest, we can get hung up on that.  The question is how do
we move on, how do we universalize our outlook?  Others do not
have our particular interest, and what is it that they may see
that we are missing?  if we go at study that way, we can widen
our view using theirs as a partial approach to consider.  We also
have to make sure that their view is reasonable and impersonal.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone, is able to review independently
(unless we are Adepts and can read the Akasic record) the early
days and methods of communicating, nor is it at all important as
to who or why HPB  (or the Masters) did all she (or They) did.
She did it.   They did it.  It is for our benefit if we wish to
profit from it.  But it was written for the world at large.    In
this you will see that we build our own "barriers."  We seem to
find a roost at the perches of our interest.  Those may obscure
the whole picture.  We have to consider how to get around them.
Let us remember that theosophical truths are facts in Nature and
can be verified independently by all who are interested.  Hence
only those things that are universal, impartial, eternal,
reasonable, intuitional will be found to the "true at all times,
to all people, and in all places or areas."

We are the ones who can profit (from the recorded Message of
Theosophy) if we will, in what was taught.  BUT WE HAVE TO PROVE
TO OURSELVES THAT IT IS VALUABLE.  No one can advance their view
or stand as an "authority" for anyone.  To seek for the "who" is
unimportant and is only curiosity.  If any one of us thinks that
they know everything or can stand in judgment over HPB and
Masters, then they are making a most serious blunder.  They can
only be checked and verified by a thorough understanding of the
fundamentals that Theosophy offers.  If we do not have hose, then
we are not serious.  We have merely discovered a new toy to amuse
us for a while.

Can I assume that you really wish to probe deeper ?

May I offer as a concept:  As a fundamental idea we are told that
the CONSCIOUSNESS that we employ is unitary (for us, as we have
each our own).  It derives directly from the ATMA  the Higher
Self, which is One with all ATMAN.  It animates successively
Buddhi (wisdom) and Manas (the thinking principle).  Manas offers
a link of intelligence of the powers of the Higher Mind to that
Monadic intelligence that has developed through the lower
kingdoms until it has developed a "vehicle of matter" -- which is
sensitive enough to receive and mirror an aspect of BUDDHI-MANAS
the Higher Mind.

This  mirror is, in each of us, that which has been called the
Lower Mind or Kama-Manas. But, note that along with that is also
the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS which pierces up and down the 7 planes of
being and serves to uphold the memory of the experiences on each
of those planes."  ( Gita Notes  pp. 98-100)  The level of
Kama-Manas is one such level.   (see SD I 157-8, 181)

Therefore that which survives death is the immortal aspect of
ourselves.  that grows constantly while the many changing
personalities come and go, fade or leave a favorable impress on
the eternal EGO.

Turning now to some other remarks you make:




  Dallas

dalval@nwc.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Kier
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 6:09 PM
To:  W. Dallas TenBroeck
Subject: Re: RE: DTB = D HPB WORK AND METHODS OF THE MASTERS


JEROME  wrote:


> Dear Dennis

> Just a footnote on the way the S.D. was assembled.  HPB handed
Archibald
and Bertram the   ....   < SNIP >

Yes, it was interesting.


> >>> "W. Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval@nwc.net>  WROTE:

> Feb 23 2000
>
> Dear Dennis:
>
> To secure the kind of information you have (below) is very
interesting.
>
> However let me observe that the Masters, apparently as a group
,work
> together as a true brotherhood.  HPB is one of their number
(they say this
> in various places, even calling her "our brother," and "He."

I found that interesting also. But-Were they refering to HPB, or
the adept
who was running the "shell" at the time? I am inclined to think
the latter.
----------------------------------


DTB	THAT IS TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT.  THEOSOPHY AS A PHILOSOPHY IS
WHAT WE ARE STUDYING.


 They do not > equate the physical form named H. P. Blavatsky
with "HPB" the indwelling
> INTELLIGENCE that used that form.  This distinction ought to be
carefully
> noted.  HPB herself often drew attention to this fact.  When
HPB stepped
> aside to let one of the Masters use the "form" she remained
consciousness
> and aware of the process, she writes and said.)   Olcott in
"Old Diary
> Leaves" notes the changes that occurred when HPB lent her
personality
> voluntarily to another "Master" to use and write through.  She
also
explains > this elsewhere in letters to her family that were
reprinted in PATH
> magazine, Vol. 9, and 10, where Mr. Judge reprinted them along
with his
> comments.

I find those letters interesting, but I interpret them
differently than you
do.
----------------------------------

DTB	THAT IS YOUR PRIVILEGE.  MAKE SURE YOU DO UNDERSTAND THEM.
-----------------------------------

> But that which has always struck me as important was not how
and who may
> have been responsible for sections of the work, but, rather,
the nature of
> the moral worth of the information offered.

I agree with that, but I am still interested in which Adept
offered which
subject. We often find that a particular personality thinks with
thought patterns that vibrate more in  sync with our own thought
patterns, making it easier to understand what they are saying -
at
least I do.

I am not down-playing the importance of the work, but I find
getting to know
individuals interesting also. In this case, it was not possible
20 years ago, or so, but
with computers and copy machines, and modern technology, it is.
Studying
this may not strike you as having any value to yourself, and that
is Your
path. I do find it of value to me. It is not generally good, or
bad, but
just something that appeals to me.

> May I offer an "aside" observation?  As I have thought of it,
this seems
to > be the way in which it operates:  Everything in Theosophy
leads us to the
> concept of a practical brotherhood -- not only of mankind, but
of
everything > (without any exceptions) in the whole of NATURE (we
are all interactive
> 'force-fields' that embody a moral position.  This could be
expressed by
the > idea that ours is a  "moral universe."  The Laws of Karma
represent this
> fact.  They are illustrative of the intense and ever-present
power of
> MOTIVE.  The reason why mankind chooses their direction of
living, impacts
> Nature in all its departments, but primarily in our own
"Skandhas;"  and,
as > a result, those become the "carriers" of our personal karma
and return to
> us, eventually, under cyclic law to provide us with the direct
experience
of > what we may have imposed on others either lawfully or
unlawfully.  We call
> the resulting circumstances "good" or "bad" karma.


Yes, Krishnamurti, in his teachings amplified on these concepts,
and in
reading the biographies of him, it is evident that he had someone
"overshadowing" him during the time of the lectures, just as was
announced
by Leadbetter and Besant, when they found him. That was pretty
much his
whole message to the world.


> The whole of the MAHATMA LETTERS and HPB's LETTERS TO
A.P.SINNETT carry
> information which was written for the instruction of chelas.
Much of it
was > entirely private and therefore it was often asked that
sections if not the
> entire letter NOT BE PUBLISHED.

I noticed that. But then, HPB said that some subjects were not
allowed to be
taught when ISIS was written, but by the writing of SD, she was
allowed to
amplify and correct those exact subjects, and said that by then,
it was
permitted to be taught.
---------------------------------------

DTB	QUITE TRUE BUT THE DECISION WAS MADE BY THE ADEPTS AS CAN BE
SEEN BY THE INTERVENING ARTICLES AND LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN
PUBLISHED.  THE HISTORY OF THAT IS ALL THERE.

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


In the passing of time between the writing of the Letters to
Sinnett, and
the printing of the book of Letters, so much had been put public,
that most
of it didn't matter so much, and even then, so much of it is only
significant to people like you and me. Because of that, I think,
it is
worthwhile for it to have been published. There is now  SO MUCH
esoteric
material in books through out the world, that it takes experience
in it to
recognise the Gems in the chaff.
--------------------------------------------


DTB	PERFECTLY SURE THAT THERE ARE GEMS IN THE CHAFF.  BUT THAT
DOES NOT LIFT THE ONUS OF OUR OBSERVING THE PRIVACY CONCERNING
THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT OTHERS HAVE VIOLATED THE SECRECY OF.  I SAID
THIS IS A MORAL UNIVERSE.  WE ARE ALL BEING TESTED AS TO THE
MANNER OF OUR EMPLOYMENT OF THE SELECTION OF THAT WHICH WE USE AS
A BASIS FOR STUDY AND DISCUSSION.  IT IS OUR DISCRETION THAT IS
UNDER TEST BY "NATURE."
------------------------------------------


> Trevor Barker however, considered this, but did not give weight
to that
> request -- and in spite of such requests published them.   So
there is a


But Trevor, all by himself, could not do much. The decision to
publish was a
group effort, not the work of a single individual.
-------------------------------------------------

DTB	WHAT IS THE SOURCE FOR THIS STATEMENT.  WHAT I HAVE FROM
THOSE WHO KNEW AND TALKED WITH TREVOR BARKER PRIOR TO THAT
PUBLISHING IS QUITE DIFFERENT.

CAN YOU LET ME HAVE THE SOURCE OF YOUR STATEMENT  "that it was a
group decision?"
DID T B SAY SO?
----------------------------------------------------------


> But those aspects are not for our entertainment or further
speculation.
> You can now see why it was of importance that such matters
ought to never
> have been publicized.  There is too much room for speculation
and
> misunderstanding.  and, in any case,  it was information that
only very
few > could make sense of.  Of course such matters ought to have
been kept
private > for that reason only.

And it is for that reason that I disagree. There are only so many
teachers
available, and so many attaining that level. While it is said
that when the
pupil is ready, a teacher will appear, now with the masses
getting ready to
graduate, the teacher can be the pupil's intuition, and a book.
But, you
have to have the knowledge and intuition to see if the teaching
contained in
the book fits in with what you need. Sometimes we have books
around for
years, and all of a sudden, it all clicks and we see that it Now
has great
value for us.

DTB	IN MY ESTEEM ONE IS ARROGATING TO ONES' SELF THE POSITION OF
EQUALITY WITH HPB AND THE MASTERS' LEVEL OF LEARNING AND
RESPONSIBILITY.  BUT IS THAT REASONABLE?  HAVE WE QUALIFIED
OURSELVES?  DO WE PRESENT THEOSOPHY OR ALLOW OUR PRESENTATION TO
REFLECT OUR SPECULATIONS?

WHEN YOU OR I ARE ABLE TO WRITE A S D, OR EVEN A KEY TO
THEOSOPHY, THEN SUCH A STATEMENT WILL BE TRUE.  CAN YOU CONSIDER
FOR YOURSELF:  WHAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR "DISAGREEMENT ?"
------------------------------------------------


> Yes, in the 15 vol. set of  HPB writings (BLAVATSKY --
COLLECTED WRITINGS,
> published by the Adyar TPH, some of the material offered there
is direct
> from unpublished MSS of HPB's  -- one might surmise that she
did not
publish > those as found there, because they deserved to be
revised and completed.
In > looking at those, and making use of the ideas they contain,
is like
dealing > with "stolen or smuggled goods." We have to be cautious
and balance what
is > said there with our own acquired knowledge of both the Head
and the Heart
> doctrines -- as outlined in the VOICE OF THE SILENCE.   We have
to use our
> "intuition."
>
I agree.

Dennis

THANK YOU AND BEST WISHES,

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.