Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00047)

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:10 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Response to Dallas

<< DTB Theosophy does not demand, as I see it, that we
"follow" any particular group or person except H.P.B. - who was
the
:"Messenger" who brought the Masters' message to us -- to read
and think
over and discuss if we want to.<<

Jerry: Does Theosophy "demand" that we follow Blavatsky? What do
we do if we
agree with her 98%, but have one or two areas that we disagree
with?
==================

1. DTB Of course not. Theosophy does not ask that we
exclusively "follow HPB" That was Dallas expressing his regard
for her sacrifice in doing this work for all of us. Have a look
at the enormous volume of writing and the accumulations and
presentation of a view of our past, written so anyone in the
world might fin something relating to his past and present which
stripped illusion from it. What you say is of course correct.
We will only choose to use those parts of her Message with which
we agree.

Theosophy is said to be an account of the research into Nature,
her composition, and Laws or ways of action -- and this covers
the fact that the past is almost infinite in extent. Every
component of Nature is said to be a MONAD or a unit of
SPIRIT/MATTER/MIND combined for this infinitude of time so that
the progress individually of such research might be preserved and
passed on to others who are also climbing the same "old Path."
If this is denied or derided there is little reason to continue
in a debate that would end in futility as the basis for beginning
would appear to be very much apart. As to who may be correct, is
left to those who in this era are doing their research and
investigations to decide.

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



<<What I mean is that we ought to go straight to H.P.B.'s
writings if we
want to know what THEOSOPHY has to say on a subject. >>

Jerry: This is why we spell it with a T instead of a t. [ YES,
if we want to ]


>> If we choose some interpreter, for whatever reason, all we get
is his or
her opinion as to what THEOSOPHY means to them. <<

Jerry: Reading Blavatsky will only get you your own
interpretation of her.
Reading Purucker will give you his interpretation, and so on. I
try to do
this and then put them all together into a synthesis. But even
after that, I
have to buck it up against my own experiences, logic, and my
current
worldview.
[ AGREED IT IS TRUE FOR ALL OF US ]



>> It is NOT WHAT H.P.B. TRANSMITTED. It is an OPINION. <<

Jerry: What is the difference between opinion and interpretation,
or are you
still suggesting that there is no interpretation, and that each
time I
disagree with you, I just haven't read her writings enough?
===================================

DTB Opinion and interpretation seem to mean the same
thing. I would rather go by what My "interpretation" goes than
adding the additional burden of another's "opinion."

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

<< And I include myself in this also, since there are probably a
1000 things
that are more subtle which H.P.B. covers than I do with my
limited
knowledge.<<

Jerry: Everything that you can't know for sure is correct or
incorrect has
to be accepted on faith. I understand that you don't think faith
applies to
Theosophy, but I would suggest that it has to. For example, I
have no idea
whether apes came from humans as she suggests, so I have to take
it on
faith.
=======================


DTB She does not pretend to substitute one hypothesis
(scientific) with another that is unverifiable. However De
Quatrefages as a qualified specialist in skeletons seems to have
found that Man antedated simians and apes and provided a more
primitive basis than the anthropoids do. A lot depends on one's
own knowledge of a particular branch of science. For those we
are unfamiliar with we suppose that the scientists who offer
hypotheses are also sincere, honest and true. So whom do we
choose? Do you have the new INDEX to the S.D. done by John Van
Mater for the TUP in 1997 -- it is very comprehensive and useful
I have found. On p. 307-8 are listed about 35 references on this
subject.: Apes derive from man and not Man from apes.

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


<<Going to the "FUNDAMENTALS -- I mean H.P.B.'s FUNDAMENTALS --
is the only
safe way.>>

Jerry: I can't imagine your thinking here. Why is reading
Purucker a danger? What about Besant who actually
knew her and heard her speak?

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

DTB As I said -- I would rather be able to read the
ORIGINALS if I could. Besant when she was near H.P.B. wrote some
very good stuff, but it was H.P.B. who could write on THEOSOPHY
and not A. Besant or, in my esteem de Puruker- At best they
could say what they thought about what H.P.B. wrote on Theosophy,
But I consider them or anyone else only able to write about what
they understood. (Including myself, please.)

This seems to again revolve around "authority." No one has it
unless it is interiorly from the ATMA within -- in which case it
agrees with TRUTH everywhere. And that is difficult to
determine, but one feels a response arising from within -- an
intuition one might call it, perhaps

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

<<But to place anyone's interpretation as the best would (to my
mind) be
making a selection which shuts out the ORIGINAL. I prefer to go
to that
"original" and do my own study and thinking on what I find and
correlate
there.<<

Jerry: What about topics on which she said nothing at all? Do we
just ignore
them? Why can't we infer from everything
that she did say? Why is this dangerous?

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

DTB Again an example is needed. Many things are
dealt with by analogy. No. I am not squeaking out of this,
since if I were presented with such a problem , I would certainly
seek for a precedent among Her writings, and if not available, I
would see if anyone else had provided a reasonable answer one
could recommend -- with the necessary cautions attached as to
avoiding blind belief.

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

<<There is no question of who is right or wrong. Results arise
because of
our selection. No one is either a beginner or an "oldster."<<

Jerry: Sorry, but I don't follow you here. I have been a
Theosophist for 35+ years and if I am not an "oldster"
than I don't know what I am. The spirit is always
fresh and young and vigorous, but the letter gets
very old...

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

DTB One does the best we can for others -- to be
sincere, accurate and above all to send them on their way knowing
others have also tried and succeeded, or tried and failed. The
knife-edge is the balance between selfishness and unselfishness
in my esteem.
I do not place much value on the number of years one may have
studied in this life. The records left by Jesus, Shankaracharya,
are of young men in their last life, while Buddha and Pythagoras
lived and taught for a long time.
The value of the student's assistance entirely depends on whether
they are in tune with NATURE and can express the LAWS of Nature,
and understand and assist in the patterns of help that each can
extend to others (without authority) , so that the path to
"Perfection." (even if that term remains indefinite, it
expresses and IDEAL in which all units of life in Nature may
ultimately attain.

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

<<So why the simile of "ostriches?" A mathematician always
employs the
original basis of calculation == are we going to call him an
"ostrich?" when
he uses calculus or spherical geometry ?>>

Jerry: A mathematician who thinks that his equations will exactly
measure
anything, is an ostrich in the sense that such a person refuses
to see what
is before them (and there are lots of such mathematicians. As an
engineer, I
learned long ago that equations were ideals, and never all that
accurate).

[ I DID TOO, but then I also took the precaution to over
compensate for the inevitable catastrophe if possible. ]


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

>> DTB I don't doubt the change of "plane" What I draw
attention to is the
fact that there is a continuity in the position of "Observer" or
"KNOWER," or
WITNESS of the events. THAT does not change. What is it? Is it
the
eternal "Pupil?"

Jerry: All "witnesses" are changed by the act of witnessing.
Every knower is
changed by learning new things. There simply is no changeless
permanent
eternal observer, neither at the lower level of ego or self, or
at the
higher level of Higher Self or Ego. If the Divine Monad grows or
learns from
the experience of its ray, then it too is not permanent.

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

DTB	Agreed -- ATMA seems to be the permanent. Buddhi is
associated with its milliards of "rays" in the period of
manifestation . But Buddhi, while it is primordial root matter,
varies, changes and is impressed with all on-going events in the
mental, moral, and physical planes (says Theosophy) it is also
called in its highest plane AKASA and there it serves as a
permanent record of all the changes. Since it has this vast and
extensive record, the Laws of cycles and Karma are seen to
emerge. Bodha is "the Wise" -- one may assume that as one scans
the records of the akasa, an d perceives the return of cyclic
events, and the linkage of effects to causes.

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


The very definition of permanent or eternal is not changing over
time. It is
not logical for you to insist that something changes over time
and yet
remains eternal. Such is an illogical wish. I would say rather
that the Self
or Ego or Monad are all relatively permanent, i.e. they appear to
be
permanent relative to our ego which changes second by second.

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

<< DTB I make a distinction between the devachanic
process between adjacent
lives -- a process conducted for everyone by Nature, and the
attempt,
whether natural or contrived of "astral traveling," or "astral
experiencing." Where THEOSOPHY sees danger and warns against is
the willful
introduction of the desire to have such experience WITHOUT having
any pure
or useful MOTIVE. We need it says, to closely examine the WHY of
what we wish to experience. I see sanity and caution in that and
not rash and passionate desiring.<<

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

Jerry: From my perspective, which could be wrong, your statements
sound like
the fox that couldn't reach the grapes. I have also made a
distinction
between normal processes that are undergone unconsciously and
those that we
can consciously control. But to sit back and let karma guide
one's actions,
when it isn't necessary, seems a bizarre position to take (and
one that
doesn't suit me at all).

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

<< DTB I doubt if it is "spiritual." Psychic perhaps if the
motive is
limited to experiment.<<

Jerry: If you have such doubts, then its best for you to stay
clear.


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

>> DTB The word/sound MUDRA has a number of
meanings attached to it a
SANSKRIT DICTIONARY reveals. (impression from signet, seal,
stamp, sigil,
print from type, countenance, one of the 5 posture in Hatha
Yoga,
positioning the fingers (gestures) to transmit meaning in a
dance-drama, and
a few others says my dictionary. So it would seem there are a
number of
ways in which it can be used either esoterically or exoterically.
[ We
might call it a kind of holy Braille, or a means of communicating
without sound by gestures and symbols. ]>>

Jerry: Agreed.

<<Better not assume that two correspondents use the same word
for the same
thing. This is where "Orientalists get into difficulties.<<

Jerry: Most "correspondents" will say what they mean. I
just don't see your whole line of reasoning, which is
apparently that of the ULT, to wit that only HPB and
the MLs are "Theosophy." This is too narrow a position
for me to accept. In fact, it was the diatribes against
CWL that sparked me to read him.

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

DTB	As to H.P.B. and the Masters being "too narrow" I would
doubt this evidence on table in the shape of their writings.

To me the coherency alone of the information and illustrations
offered is convincing.

As to others views and writings, I do not always find that the
fit into the framework that THEOSOPHY has offered. I have also
compared their "framework" and found in incongruent. But then I
reject nothing and set those incongruencies aside to be recalled
when needed for either PURPOSE

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


<< How does one read "between the lines?" >>

Jerry: By comparing the words read to one's experience.

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

<< DTB thank you I was not sure which definition was
used. So the word
MONAD was used pretty early in the S.D. -- Even there H.P.B. does
not
indicate clearly what "the end of the cycle" is -- so we
speculate ? <<

The "end of the cycle" is the end of any manvantara,
unless she lost me completely. I do not consider this
to be speculating!!


<< Also the word "absorbed" does not mean disintegrated
or destroyed. >>

Jerry: I don't want to quibble over words. I stand by my
interpretation.

>>yet preserves its distinct individuality in Paranirvana owing
to the
accumulation in it of the aggregates, or skandhas that have
survived after
each death, from the highest faculties of the MANAS ..."<<

Jerry: Here we have a good example of mixing two different
things together. Paranirvana is NOT between two
life-times. To suggest that there is individuality in
nirvana, let alone Paranirvana, is so misleading it
is plain wrong, and I don't care who said it. Such
is against all Buddhist teaching. Buddhists are the
ones who invented nirvana, and by god they should be
the one's who define it. The whole idea of nirvana
is a state without skandhas, and the notion of
Paranirvana was invented to counteract the false
view of nirvana as an absolute (how can there be
anything above-para an absolute?).

=====================================
DTB	So long as we do not attempt to make of the ABSOLUTE a
"thing" I think we are OK>

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


>> DTB I really DON'T TRY TO SIDE WITH ANYONE. But
using my own power to
think and using the material that one can study, I think and
write on the
basis of what I am able to determine seems coherent and
logical.<<

Jerry: It is NOT logical to suggest that the Divine
Monad needs to gain self-consciousness. Rather it is
totally illogical, and makes the Monad into just
another aggregate. Personally, I find this to be such
an amazingly illogical idea that I can only shake my
head in wonder at those folks who find some kind of
solace with it.


<< The Buddha certainly seems to me to
indicate that the "Way" leads to a "Goal." If true, then what
definitions
does HE give of that ? And why?
Dal>>

Check out his four noble truths. The Middle Way is
the "path" noble truth, and it says that all extremes
are wrong. Thus it is wrong to suggest nothingness
or nihilism and it is equally wrong to suggest any
absolutes or absolutism. Extreme views of this nature
are called "afflicted views" and need to be eradicated.
Why? Because such views lead to suffering, and the
Goal is liberation from suffering.

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

DTB	Apparently "LIBERATION FROM SUFFERING" was the first goal to
present to humanity at the present stage we are in: To cease
from EVIL is by doing GOOD."

It will take a long time to rid ones' self of evil Karma chosen
by us and done in our past.

What then is the next Goal? I think I find it offered in the
VOICE OF THE SILENCE p. 36:

"To live to BENEFIT mankind is the FIRST STEP."	-- VOICE 36

"To practice the SIX GLORIOUS VIRTUES is the second."	== VOICE 36

"To don NIRMANAKAYAS humble robe is to forego eternal bliss for
Self, to help on man's salvation. To reach Nirvana's bliss, but
to renounce it, is the supreme, the final step--the highest on
Renunciation's Path.:	Know o Disciple, this is the secret PATH,
selected by the Buddhas of Perfection, who sacrificed the SELF
for weaker Selves..	-- VOICE 36

This is very interesting. Thanks

Best wishes,

Dallas

Jerry S.





---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net