Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00142)

Mauri wrote:

> It would seem that the Masters consider themselves "out of the picture,"
> basically, as far as their involvement/interference  in karmic
> entanglements are concerned here on our earth plane, and since that points
> to individual and group INITIATIVES as a primary means of dealing with
> life/karma, (help from the Masters being comparitively rare, and
> apparently available only when karmically justified),  I would think that,
> karmically speaking (and to stay within the current bn-basic "karma topic"
> of discussion), it's as if karma is speaking to us and saying something
> like:
> "you only get out of it what you put into it."  Which suggests to me that
> we need to do much more than just sit back in a comfortable chair and
> think about the past even though we can obviously learn much from the
> past:  that in order for us to advance/evolve individually and
> collectively we
> should confront and evaluate our present karmic situations which, being
> unique and different, should be faced and dealt with in the here and now,
> in real time, with here-and-now APPLICABLE attitudes and approaches.   And
> it's the real-time-here-and-now that, in my opinion, ought to be somewhat
> examined as to questions of applicability on the subject of  promulgating
> theosophy.
>
> In other words, my previous efforts to look at the pros and cons of
> introducing a few new ADDITIONAL (instead of  replacement) words towards
> what might be a more-applicable DEFINITION of "Theosophy," (with a view to
> possibly introducing such an enhanced definition to standard dictionaries
> and encyclopedias as well as to non-traditional theosophical glossaries,
> even), is essentially of course closely related to the subject of
> promulgating theosophy.

+++++++++++++++++++

Mauri:

I am just getting caught up with reading. So, just a few points that seem
important to me, even though they are sort of late.

This sort of points up my interest in finding out the background of the
speaker, and the background of what is being said in order to understand
what is being said better.

If we take what is said by HPB and/or her Masters, and apply our own
cultural practices and expectations, we run the risk of making a very big
misunderstanding of what was said, and what the speaker meant when he spoke.

The Masters and their Chelas were predominately Tibetans, and Indians -
mostly Brahamans. If we do not understand their culture, how can we figure
out what their cultural expectations were? Our American customs and cultural
expectations are quite different from that of many European nations, and we
have mostly a European background. Our expectations are quite different from
the Latin Americans, and the Asians. If we don't take that into account, we
can miss quite a lot in the writings that seemed apparent to the writers.

In about 1915 to 1925, a French lady Historian, Linguist, and Buddhist chose
to tramp all over Tibet, much like HPB did 50 years earlier. The Lady,
Alexandra David-Neel, disguised herself as a lady lama, and joined caravans
crossing Tibet from both the north and the south. She got to know both the
Tashi Lama and the Dali Lama, took many pictures, and did all the things
that religious Tibetan Lamas of the time did.

She wrote a great many books, (in French), the first one published about
1929. some of them are still being sold in English translation from Dover
Publishers in New York, and Shambhala Publishers.

One of them from Dover Publishers, MAGIC AND MYSTERY IN TIBET goes in detail
about the Tibetan cluture, and about the relationship between the Master and
Chela, their practices and expectations. The second half of the book
especially is where she gets into the descriptions of the Lamaseries, and
the high Lamas, the descriptions of the individual aspirants alone in their
cells under the direction of the Master, and the attitude and expectation of
the Masters toward the Chela, and toward the world in general. She goes and
does the practices she writes about.

This is a glimpse not into our Scientific World, but in their world, which
is essentially the traditional world  of thousands of years ago.

There is also a biography, ALEXANDRA DAVID-NEEL by Ruth Middleton from
Shambhala Publishers that gives a long list of the writings of Mme.
David -Neel.

She writes of staying at various Theosophical hostels in the north of India
in her travels.

The Master M & KH were living in Tibet, and conducted their business in
mostly the Tibetan way, and these books go a long way toward making one
understand their attitudes. They were not Our attitudes. I am convinced that
if the Chohan had done his experiment with the European bodies, and European
Adepts, in Europe, the whole Doctrine would have been quite different.

Their attitudes toward Karma, and helping or not helping the pupil differ
quite differently from that of the earlier messengers of Cagliostro, Elephas
Levi, and even St. Germain are striking. Points that seemed apparent to the
Indian Chelas, like Damodar, were not at all apparent to Judge, Olcott,
Leadbeater, Sinnett, Besant, and the rest. If the Society had had only
Indian leaders from the start, instead of all European and Americans, it
would have been quite different today.

In order to understand these teachings, I personally think that one needs to
understand the speaker, and the culture that he was brought up in, to
understand what it is that he is saying, and what it is that he just assumes
to be facts of the Universe when he speaks.

I reccomend the reading of these books, to add value and understanding to
the study of the Theosophical Classics.




-- 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.