Theos-Talk Archives (February 2000 Message tt00083)

----- Original Message -----
From: W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net>
To: Dennis Kier <dennw3k@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 4:33 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: RE: DTB = D HPB WORK AND MASTERS


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

Oh, I believe you did. It is just that I have some ideas of my own, and as
you say, we have to think about things on our own. I understand what it is
that you believe is true. It is just that _I_ do not believe many of the
same things. I think that many of your opinions have a solid foundation.
But, I have been reasoning, and reading a few years too. So, I have come to
some different conclusions. I appreciate reading your material. You make
some interesting points. But, I do not believe that I should take your
opinions as gospel, any more than you are willing to take mine as such.

> 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.

I could quote chapter & verse and all that, but it is better organized in
the book HP BLAVATSKY, Tibet & Tulku, by Geoffrey A Barborka. It has the
quotes already done. In addition, the facts presented fit in with many
observations that I have made previously, not associated with Theosophy.
This is one reason that I like to study the setting, and the background of
the material, in addition to the Official Text as well. The book is in
print, and may be available in some library near you. If I were you, I
wouldn't buy it, since it presents many facts that do not fit your
preconcieved notions.

> 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 take it from this that you have never read much of Olcott's material.

> Neither you nor I, nor anyone, is able to review independently
> (unless we are Adepts

So, I take it from that that you are not able to read the records either.

Olcott asked one of the Adepts, when they were together how many different
varieties of Adept there is, and the Master said 65. There is a gap of a few
lifetimes as the student progresses through the Adept state into the Master
(graduate Adept) state. I would guess that you are about 1/2 way through it
all. Perhaps, if you meditate regularly, and can exibit some of the siddihs,
you might be a bit further along. But, with 7, or 65, there are enough
different paths to accomodate both our approaches to the matter, and have a
few other paths left over for others.

> 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

Yes, that is what I am doing.

> Can I assume that you really wish to probe deeper ?

I do all the time.

> 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.

Yep! Your style of thinking is a bit more verbose than mine, but it is
interesting to read.

> DTB THAT IS TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT.  THEOSOPHY AS A >PHILOSOPHY IS WHAT WE
ARE STUDYING.
>
Again, your point of view vs mine. You are correct, but only for yourself.

> I find those letters interesting, but I interpret them
> differently than you
> do.
> ----------------------------------
>
> DTB THAT IS YOUR PRIVILEGE.  MAKE SURE YOU DO UNDERSTAND THEM.
> -----------------------------------

> > 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?
> ----------------------------------------------------------

Gee!, I would think that this is just a common sence observation. I have
worked in print shops. Do you think Trevor mixed the ink for the presses?,
or loaded the paper on them, or designed the cover, or selected the type.
Ink, paper, typesetter, binding - all cost a lot of money. Trevor can come
up with all sorts of books, but without the cooperation of the publisher,
and financing, and distribution, it is not going to go very far. Book
publishing is a cooperative effort, of a lot of people, and a lot of
different skills and trades. The "source" of my statement is my past
experience. -which should be obvious.

>
> > 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.

Again, we dissagree. I am for freedom of the press, and information. It will
make sense to the people who need it, and make absolutely no sense to the
rest of the people. I do not agree with the Government bureaucrat who would
withhold all information from the people, and I think that in Occult
matters, things should be out in the open as well. Your approach and mine is
different.

> 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?

Karma. The Masters say that our actions are our responsibility. In the
letters to Sinnett, they say that if they tell someone to do something, and
the action turns out to be beneficial, then the good karma accrues to
them. -or the bad also does. That is why they let the student to grow by
doing and learning. We cannot sit by forever waiting for the Master to put
it all out for us on a silver platter. We have to do it for ourselves. That
is how we advance on the path.

Dennis


-- 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.