Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00036)

Saturday, March 03, 2001


Dear Bart:

Thanks

I realize you said something else, but I widened it to include
others' views as well as yours, that's all. If you are annoyed
at the rehash, then perhaps a reason for it ought to be found.
There are as many opinions as there are people, but the
object/subject chosen is still IN ITSELF ONE. If we can no that
then the opinions vanish. For instance in the light of dawn
every viewer of the Pyramid in Gaza sees it from a slightly
different point of view. But the Pyramid is still the PYRAMID.

If you review every philosophy, religion or science in our world,
historically, you will notice that there are again opinions,
which broadly can be said to be

1. a description of fact, and

2. many opinions about the FACT.

Same for Theosophy.

If you want to know it go to the SOURCE. If you prefer wandering
discussions on opinions then choose those, but there is no real
room for objection when someone chooses to analyse logically and
trace the SOURCE of the various views. For all of us, in the
last century or so, H.P.B. is that SOURCE. If we do not study
what she offers, then we do not know how and why THEOSOPHY says
what it does. Having spent a lot of time studying and verifying
as far as I am able this monolith which seems to me to be
all-inclusive in its comprehensive diversity, I offer my opinion
that it ought to be primary in our studies, then with the basics
it offers in hand (mind), we can approach others and check them.

If you want free discovery, why then choose that. No objections.
But let us agree that this is only one of the several aspects of
approach to the SOURCE THEOSOPHY. No one's view is entirely
correct, but as H.P.B. says it tends to approach to the SOURCE
FACTS. If we can tolerate that from one-another then we can go
on in harmony, comparing our results, and if they are diverse,
let's call them "studies in Theosophy," NOT Theosophy in its
original exactness.

All I write for instance is such a "study." But I make it a
point to indicate to inquirers to seek such sources as may be
helpful. We all do this to some extent. But I think it is
important to declare our partiality and dependence on others for
details, doctrine and theory if such be the case. We have to
leave all to their own self-generated choices, and each has to
bear the responsibility of their choice.

The problem with "splits" and "divisions" is that the persons who
become or remain adherents usually have scarcely studied the
positions the others have assumed. To the extent we remain
ignorant of these to that extent our adherence and loyalty is
"blind." So I say still if we go to the ORIGINAL we have a tool
in our memory to compare with the rest.

Those "splits and divisions" are mainly caused by individuals who
"like" someone's way of expressing an idea, but they, themselves
do not want to spend the time finding out if it is valid. They
want to "piggy-back," and usually that works out to their
detriment. They have not understood their position, nor can they
explain it fully.

As to "illumination" if we mean intuition with BUDDHI (Universal
and Impersonal Wisdom) as a basis, then, by description it means
the power to impersonally view the truth (not opinion) concerning
some fact or event. At lease that is how I understand it.

So we are back to the belief/opinion/fact thing. Illuminations
(as I understand) can be of several kinds: dreams, trance,
visions, perception, an innate knowledge of the laws relative to
a subject/object. All those and perhaps more. But the thinking
that makes them useful, or the reverse, is motive. I ask: Why
us? What are we going to do with them? Are they for us only or
for the benefit of others, and so on. If we secure a vision of
truth, then what are we to do with it? Do we become a "prophet"
or sit quietly until we have verified the accuracy and use of a
vision? I Am interested in this aspect of the matter, at least
theoretically.

As you say bickering gets us nowhere. Only opinions without
reasons generate "bickering." However it seems necessary to
point out from time to time that there is an ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY
which is a basis to which everyone can go. There are also many,
and sometimes very forceful opinions, using up volumes of space.
In all this spread out in front of us, how do we determine what
is useful, and in writing about it, how do we do it without
sounding either doctrinaire or dogmatic? I am of the opinion
that there is no real harm in pointing to the SOURCE and letting
other go there and FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES.

I happen to be of the opinion (proven to my satisfaction) that
H.P.B. and the Masters in their writings have given us all the
first integrated and coherent basis for us to use. They have
done this in a "gathering in of known (and some hitherto
unknown) references." Part of this lore relates to the past of
various and far-flung theogonies and histories, many of which
are lost in written or graven fashion. They gathered material
that in this case (ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE in
particular) point to several levels, myth, legend, tradition,
history custom written or carved records, (many of these have
been destroyed by fanatics -- and just now I see in the paper
that the fanatic Taliban Muslims in Afghanistan are proposing to
destroy the marvelous antique record of the decreasing height of
the races of man to be found in Bamian. [S.D. II 336-340]. If
they do then 1,000 years from now hardly and tradition concerning
those will remain. And so history gets obliterated. How many of
our Museums have data of the really ancient past that is still
undeciphered? -- As I say the evidence is widely scattered and
many thousands of volumes might to consulted before a literature
such as H.P.B. gave us could be written. She was indeed a
pioneer. And the wise men of her day united to recognize this.
In fact we might use her records as a starting point for all the
marvelous further development of Science since her days. She was
a kind of "spark-plug." Why did Einstein keep a heavily
annotated S.D. on his table, and others like Edison, became
members of the early T.S. ?

I say so. In studying widely the writings of others I have found
flaws of fact and of logic. I have also felt that in some cases
the SOURCE writings have been obscured, if not distorted. But as
this is an opinion I have not tried to make much of it, beyond
issuing a kind of caution note, in my recommendations that we go
to sources, however tedious it might be to repeat those
statements.

What else can I say ?

Best wishes,

Dallas.

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



-----Original Message-----
From: teos9@aol.com [mailto:teos9@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:58 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Pseudo-Theosophy

Hello Dallas, I have inserted a few thoughts refarding your
comments below.
Louis.

In a message dated 2/28/2001 5:51:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dalval14@earthlink.net writes:

>
> Dallas observes:
>
> One wonders how the study of theosophy can ever be called
> "tiresome."

I did not say that the study of theosophy is tiresome. I said
that the
polarized personalities involved in this unending debate about
the correct or
incorrect forms of theosophy is tiresome to many of us who have
been
listening to it for the last forty years or more. The constant
rehashing of
this matter saps valuable time and energy from the more important
experience
of free study and discovery.

> If we seek truth, then we may use it as any other exposition
and
> do the tracing to true or false conclusions.
> Would it not be better to say that the "tiresome debates"
are
> really aspects of our own effort? If we seek within that of
> which we are a part (because it is universal) then some aspect
of
> our won nature is making up this attitude Is it useful? What
> causes such a reaction? Can we determine this?

This is just another way of saying there is a true theosophy and
a false
theosophy. H.P.B, Judge, etc., is proper theosophy and worth
studying.
Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, etc., is wrong and not worth the
effort. I
suggest that any theosophy which can produce intuitional
resonance and
inspirational vision is proper and worth the study effort, pure
and simple.
>
> In the meantime, are not all students going to follow their
own
> "path?" Why should anyone expect a group of students /
members
> to be patent copies of one-another?
>
> Is the real "debate" about principles, bases, and logical
> conclusions, or is it about the "clash of opinions?"

It's about both Dallas. For the personalities that involve
themselves in
these affairs have a complex of traits, characteristics and
agenda's that
they bring to the table, some open and obvious others more subtle
and
indirect. It has appeared to me, for some time now, that the
"ongoingness of
the debate" is the really important thing. For I have never seen
an honest
attempt at resolution and release. The damage that was done
during the
Besant/Judge/Krishnamurti/Bailey etc. splits, remains unhealed
to this day.
Each camp has its adherents and defenders and no quarter seems to
be given.
>
> Saying one view or another concerning Theosophy by students
who
> followed HPB is only saying that they differ in their
> understanding. We still have as a core center the
presentation
> of THEOSOPHY in its original words as written by H.P.B
>
> Who is afraid of approaching that? In any case in this
> incarnation or some other one will come up against these basic
> ideas. If we use and develop them now we will probably save
> ourselves a lot of effort, and time. Karma presents us with
this
> opportunity. Do we seize it? Each decides for themselves.
>
There it is again. The inference is that if we explore other
Theosophical
writers and are illumined by them, the illumination will be
impaired somehow
because we did not get it from the correct source. Illumination,
inspiration
and Spiritual insight are conditions and experiences of our inner
being.
Their manifestation can occur without reading anything at all. or
by reading
everything there is. The incoming generations will have access to
spiritual
inspiration from a vast ocean of resources. How can we possibly
judge the
assimilative quality of another's life path?


> It is valuable and instructive to note that H.P.B. says that
the
> words used to covey Theosophical doctrines and metaphysics
> APPROXIMATE to the truth that lies in between the words, or
> behind them as seminal idea. I conceive that we develop our
> intuition as we seek to unravel the inner meaning that lies
> behind the words. Also I think that THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE
if
> regularly used and read, and thought over -- as the moral link
> between appearances and causes -- tends to develop in us this
> abilit
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>

With all that said, Let me state for the record that my first and
enduring
love, ARE the writings of H.P.B. The wisdom that I have found in
her work has
inspired monumental transformations in my understanding of the
human journey.
But I have also read most of the other theosophical works,
adjacent to,
contemporary of, as well as currently emerging. I for one, am
able to find
true theosophy resonating in many different places. Let the lines
of division
decay and disappear. Let us embrace everyone whose karma has
brought them to
ANY study of theosophy because one day that study may inspire
them to do
great things. There is much work to be done. This perrenial
bickering between
ORIGINAL and PSEUDO theosophy keeps us from it, in one way or
another.

Louis


> ======================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart Lidofsky [mailto:bartl@sprynet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 5:46 AM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Pseudo-Theosophy
>
> teos9@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Some observations regarding Wes Amerman's reply below:
> >
> > Again, we revisit this tired old debate. Ever since the
death
> of the founders
> > of the Theosophical Movement as we know it today, this
battle
> has raged on
> > between the various interested parties. Who has the correct
> interpretation of
> > Theosophy and who does not!
>
> Of course, if one follows Blavatsky and the Mahatmas,
> then one knows:
> NOBODY has the correct interpretation of Theosophy. Yet. And
for
> the
> foreseeable future.
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>

CUT