Theos-Talk Archives (February 2000 Message tt00084)

Feb 28th 2000

Dear Dennis:

Many thanks for your answer to which I will make some notes
below.

First:

I am NOT in the business of "convincing" anyone.  I do however
present some of the conclusions that I have arrived at and offer
them for consideration and response.  Consequently you are
entirely free -- and I am glad that you see that.  But when I
meet with something that I have not yet seen, I do want to verify
its source.

Best wishes,

  Dallas

dalval@nwc.net


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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Dennis Kier
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 5:42 PM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: RE: DTB = D HPB WORK AND MASTERS



----- 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.

DTB	I REPEAT:	I am emphatically NOT in the business of convincing
anyone.  I do however present some of the conclusions that I have
arrived at and offer them for consideration and response.
Consequently you are entirely free -- and I am glad that you see
that.
-----------------------------


> 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.

DTB	I HAVE HAD IT FOR MANY YEARS SINCE PUBLICATION.  As far as I
can determine it has added very little to that which Theosophy
and its literature already cover.   What is clear is that HPB was
responsible for bringing the matter of the transfer of
consciousness of an INDIVIDUAL (when Karma necessitated) to the
attention of those who were going to study its tenets.

I have no idea of what you consider to be the "official text."

My sole consideration in all matters is whether that which is
being discussed is reasonable and in line with fundamental
principles. I am looking for basic facts that anyone can use and
trust.  It cannot be a matter of either opinion or sentiment,
since both are variables.  If we are looking at the same facts,
our conclusions ought to show a close coincidence.  If one takes
information at second hand, the possibility of additional errors
increases.  I try to avoid that.  Thus, I seek to avoid that fine
line between fact and fiction that blurs and slurs understanding.
---------------------------------------



> 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.

DTB	My acquaintance with his views is taken from his
contributions to the pages of THEOSOPHIST, as I have all the
early volumes at hand, and have read through them a few times.
Also OLD DIARY LEAVES has been read and compared with the
documents of Theosophical History that seem in some cases to show
a more accurate delineation of facts.

Olcott developed many opinions of his own (who does not ?) and
some of those seem to me to be ungenerous in regard to his
changing views of his "teacher" HPB.

After her death (as far as I can see and read) he made some
accusations that he had not dared utter to her while she was
alive.  He also showed his animosity to Mr. Judge in more ways
than one and was instrumental in promoting the "Judge Case"
beyond reasonable limits, especially as it had been terminated in
July 1894,  and  BROTHERHOOD was the prime Object of the
Theosophical Society.

Another source of consideration :  HPB's letters could be
mentioned in regard to these and other matters addressed to Mr.
Sinnett.  Add to that the letter (August 22 1888) written to him
(Olcott) directly by the Master K. H. and delivered on board the
S. S. SHANNON (reprinted in LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM,
1st Series,  pp 50 -56).
---------------------------------------------



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

DTB	On the contrary I have dealt with those "records" almost
daily for many years.  Part of my work has been to verify that
the statements made in the book THE THEOSPHICAL MOVEMENT --
1875-1950 (Cunningham Press, Los Angeles)  are documentarily
correct.  I did this for my own satisfaction.
------------------------------------------

Olcott asked one of the Adepts, when they were together how many
different
varieties of Adept there is, and the Master said 65.

DTB	Do you have the reference for this statement?  I cannot
recollect it.  I would be obliged for your giving me the source
for it.  Where did the Master say "65 ?"
Is there anything else given there in additional explanation?
I would very much like to be able to see it.
To myself I say:  And why "65" and not "70 ?"
I cannot recollect reading this in MAHATMA LETTERS, or some of
the other sources that have reprinted Masters' letters.  But then
I have not read everything either.
-----------------------------------------------------


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.

DTB	I am not in the business of grading anyone or anything.  That
is quite insignificant if one adopts the view that we are all
immortals.  And if we have eternity in which to complete our
program of learning and work.  There is no need to hurry, but I
would think that accuracy of fact is important to all.  I like
the idea of being about 1/2 way through, as that gives one a
sense of the need for continued study and work.  But I see no
need of looking for, or trying to define any "finality."  One
might say that for any one Manvantara there is a stage that marks
the "perfection" that is provided by that time period of living
and working.  But then there are many more Manvantaras to follow.

As I read it, the SECRET DOCTRINE (SD I 617-634) states that we
are all MONADS  (ATMA-BUDDHI) in evolution --  so that no one is
any older than any other.  But if there are any "differences" it
is in the degree of intelligence and awareness that any one
exhibits  (SD I 174-5fn) .  I would say that the virtues demand
of anyone humility as a pre-requisite.  And I address this to
myself whenever I write.

The writings of Gautama the BUDDHA and the VOICE OF THE SILENCE
indicate this is a primary part of the development of any
self-progressing Monad.  The last thing (it seems to me) that any
would do,  would be to make personal comparisons and estimates.
----------------------------------------


> 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.

DTB	Dear Dennis it so happens that I have spent most of my life
in printing and publishing and have owned several presses -- so
the answer you give is not direct to my question, is it ?   I
simply asked you for a REFERENCE:  I would like to see where this
was SAID or WRITTEN.  It is not COMMON SENSE to me.  I thought
you had something that I could also look at.

Did you have a reference to this "group effort" -- or did you
mean the production of a book after Trevor Barker had done by
himself all the writing or editing?
Your statement is to me was unclear on that subject.

But thank you, as I now see that there is no reference that you
were quoting.  It was only your way of expressing yourself.
----------------------------------------------------


>
> > 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	THAT IS QUITE CLEAR.   I too, want access to the facts.
Occultism is actually quite explicit and usually in plain sight.
People shut themselves off from understanding it by seeking to
apply to what they read only their own view-point.  Unless this
is widened and deepened the fine points of "Occultism" are passed
over -- this is as I see it.  In fact I have re-read passages
several times, and each time that I approach them, I find that I
can see a deeper meaning there, which previously I have passed
over.  My guess is that each time we return, we carry with us all
that we have acquired as increased depth, and that is what shows
the difference.  Has that not also happened to you ?
---------------------------------------------------


> 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.

DTB	VERY TRUE

Many thanks for clearing this up
Best wishes,

Dallas  (Feb 28th 2,000)

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


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.