Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00102)

Dear Dallas

Yes, they are questions.

1) Do we know from the original letters, why the original text was replaced
by dots, or are there dots in the original? And thus: "doubt, eternal
wavering--it leads one to wreck. . . ." Why the dots? What does it
lead one to wreck? *Why can't it be published?* Why is it secret?
This taken with "He may be moved to doubt--and that is the beginning of
wisdom," which appears later on in the article.
If we are stuck in a particular religion, it may well be wise to doubt, but
on the other hand, if forever doubting it is impossible to move.
The question is, why the dots? Why is it witheld?

2) What are the Star Rishis? What is bad about them?

"Those who fall off from our living human Mahatmas to fall into the
Saptarishi--the Star Rishis, are no Theosophists."



-----Original Message-----
From: dalval14@earthlink.net [mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net]
Sent: 17 April 2001 2:31 pm
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: "She Being Dead Yet Speaketh"...Theos-World TS(Adyar) -
Election of President -- WHAT PRINCIPLES SHOULD PREVAIL ?


Dear Tony:

To my mind the whole article has always been of great value.

I agree the amplified passages you quote ought to be studied,
remembered and applied.

As you make no comment, did you have one for me?

Best wishes,

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony [mailto:alpha@dircon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 3:12 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: "She Being Dead Yet Speaketh"...Theos-World
TS(Adyar) - Election of President -- WHAT PRINCIPLES SHOULD
PREVAIL ?

Dear Dallas
You write:
<<<SHE BEING DEAD YET SPEAKETH -- Path July 1892 -- ULT
H.P.B.
Articles, Vol. 1, p. 115,
(Not included in BCW )>>>

To quote from this article:
>>"Of the two unpardonable sins, the first is
Hypocrisy--Pecksniffianism.
Better one hundred mistakes through unwise, injudicious sincerity
and
indiscretion than Tartuffe-like saintship as the whitened
sepulchre, and
rottenness and decay within. . . . This is not unpardonable, but
very
dangerous, . . . doubt, eternal wavering--it leads one to wreck.
. . . One
little period passed without doubt, murmuring, and despair; what
a gain it
would be; a period a mere tithe of what every one of us has had
to pass
through. But every one forges his own destiny.

Those who fall off from our living human Mahatmas to fall into
the
Saptarishi--the Star Rishis, are no Theosophists." <<

Do you know where the original letters that the above article is
taken from
are, or if they have been published in their completeness. There
are some
"dots" in the first paragraph quoted above, particularly
"dangerous, . . .
doubt, eternal wavering--it leads one to wreck. . . . One" Are
these
"dots" in the original, or is something purposely excluded? Do
you know?
What does doubt lead one to wreck in this case? Further on in
the article
is:
"He may be moved to doubt--and that is the beginning of wisdom."
(In the first case it is "doubt, eternal wavering.")

In the 2nd paragraph, why "fall into the Saptarishi--the Star
Rishis, are no
Theosophists." Do you know why Star Rishis are no Theosophists?
Looking
up SAPTARSHI (sic) in the Glossary has not really helped, but you
may see it
differently. The fact that they make up the constellation of the
Great
Bear, as Stars, could be seen as a fall into the lower passions
or
something? Any suggestions?

Tony




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/