Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00087)

Dallas wrote:

> I suspected these were student speculations.
>
> Too bad they could not be checked out with H P B, and had to be
> issued after Her death -- unsupported and unverified.

That explains a lot about you Dallas.

> They tend (in my opinion) to divert the mind of the student of
> THEOSOPHY away from the writings of H.P.Blavatsky and the
> Masters, and, AWAY from the original and very accurate
> statements concerning Nature and her range of interactive and
> inter-related (by KARMA) planes, faculties, qualities, etc...
> whether these be related to the Universe, Kosmos, Cosmos, or our
> Earth and to each human.

How can you possibly verify anything that she wrote except by direct
experience? Everything else is just a belief in or faith about what she and
the masters were or said. It's just opinion and personal choice.

I hesitate to do this, but your dreamy elevation of HPB to a pedestal just
makes me want to resurrect all the "evidence" of fraud, charlatanry and
shenanigans surrounding her. She was not infallible. Neither were the
masters. They said so themselves. Her stuff is admittedly incomplete and
full of gaps, holes and binds. Perhaps questionable at best. This makes me
want to verify things for myself, as I am able. I maintain that I might be
wrong. If so, I'll adapt. It wouldn't be the first time. But I also maintain
that the living god within me has it all over the books.

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be
experienced."

> I find these confusing, as they do not seem to be useful and
> logical developments from what we so little know and need to
> assimilate and grasp, of what H.P.Blavatsky wrote. What do I
> need to have, as a mere list of names, when it is the faculties
> and their development that are so ESSENTIAL. I say to myself:
> "Why did H.P.Blavatsky not mention these? " She is so careful to
> make everything eventually clear to the student. "What kind of a
> "short-cut" to wisdom are these ?"

I'm sorry that my mention of these terms and ideas is causing you discomfort
as you struggle to try and fit them into or relate them to your theosophical
world-view. What does the mere mention of these ideas do to you that makes
you think that faculties cannot be developed?

If you think she made everything so clear, then why are there gaps and
admissions of limitation and purposeful blinds? That creates a lot of
obscurity in my consideration of her presentation.

HPB did mention these other planes, but not directly. It's unclear at best
and I may be wrong in my understanding, but she did outline a seven plane
system and then go on to admit that esoterically there can also be ten or
even twelve. She didn't mention them directly. If you just want to deal with
Atma and what follows, that's OK with me. It's all just a bunch of names and
ideas anyway, without experience. Now I know where you're coming from.

Simmer down, boss.

> In other words I do not find them to be a useful development --
> something to assist us out from what we already know in a kind of
> disorganized way. Who among us has set to work to organize the
> tremendous field of information and wisdom that is inherent in
> what we already have received ? Look at what H.P.Blavatsky says
> in the last 3 paragraphs of Vol. 2 of The SECRET DOCTRINE on what
> can be further issued if and when we show we have assimilated the
> first 2 volumes. Have we set to work to alter our way of
> personal life so as to practice the living implications of what
> she exposes us to see and use ? Have we in any way a clearer
> view of the summum bonum -- of the Cause and the Goal of SUBLIME
> PERFECTION ? What are our present duties ? How do we find or
> determine them ?

Again, you are assuming an AWFUL LOT with that statement, D.

> For example: I am content to know that there are beings who once
> were "men-minds" such as we now are, and who have improved on
> that (by this I mean, H.P.Blavatsky, the Masters the Buddhas, and
> the Christs of the world, etc...) . I am content to receive from
> H.P.Blavatsky and the Masters what They deem will be useful to me
> at this stage of progress. I am content that I have to labor on
> my own so as to develop spiritual discrimination and practical
> purity of life based on the metaphysical principles made clear to
> me. I am aware that the MONAD is an eternal pilgrim. I know
> that Karma is ever-active and entirely just and fair. I realize
> I have duties and responsibilities in this life that ought to be
> discharged no matter what happens. -- and so on.

Me too, no matter what we call it. I fail to see how talking about the
possibility of "hidden other planes" equates to a failing in the ways you
are suggesting.

> Are we not all in the same condition-- of course with individual
> variations ? Do we not have a duty to assist those "Monads" who
> have less experience than we and who aggregate around us, hoping
> we will lead them to a higher plane of perception and
> responsibility, leading eventually to their own individualization
> and final emancipation? So, my guess is that we will always be
> mid-way between the far advanced, and the newbees in the
> evolutionary chain. That being so, and with that work entrusted
> to us, who are we to complain?

I really fail to follow your rant here Dallas. Of course, we're all in the
same condition. Of course, in the realm of the relative, there are always
those ahead of, a breast of and following us. We are all on a ladder. Rungs
above, rungs below, and a whole bunch of peers at our sides. What's your
point?

> I guess I am blowing off steam, and apologize for shattering you
> good ear with my natterings.

I understand your devotion to the writings of H.P.B. and the ML. I'm not
threatening anything you hold dear. Please back away to a respectful
distance.

> When we have mastered The SECRET DOCTRINE then perhaps we might
> be able to determine the worth of these. At the moment I do not
> see that the information offered in The SECRET DOCTRINE and
> elsewhere in Theos. Literature is yet assimilated and made ready
> for daily use.

Perhaps, but you seem to be taking the position of one who arbitrates what
is "good" and "acceptable" theosophical literature from any value that might
be obtained from other things, whether directly related or not (as in our
recent tete-a-tete about the value of science since 1875). HPB didn't do
that. Her sources were numerous and spanned all kinds of disciplines and
periods, not just what the Masters said. Further, you seem to suggest that
these other things make it somehow difficult for you. I'm not that close to
you that the views I hold should destabilize you so.

If nobody else but HPB can actually have genuine experiences, try to
understand themselves or commune with the living spirit, then we're all
doomed, eh?

I need to allow for a living experiential progressive revelation. To me that
is quintessentially theosophical. To do otherwise risks idolatry and
dependence.

Perhaps you want your dependencies to be glued to HPB and the ML. If so, go
in peace my brother. I understand the validity of Guru Yoga. But please
don't assume or get flustered by others who choose differently. There are
lots of yogas.

> In other words the ethico-moral PATH of
> application seems to have been shoved aside in favor of rather
> (to me) fruitless names of possible planes, which may or may not
> have actuality, but which lend very little if anything to the
> depth of understanding our present task -- the study of the
> ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of theosophy.

Uh hem ... that may be your chosen task, but what makes you assume it is the
complete definition of mine? Your assumption that somehow my allowing the
possibility to considering the so called "hidden planes" equates to a
shoving aside of ethics and morals is stepping over the line. Please,
brother, do not assume that of me.

> It is as if those who originated these complex views, names and
> considerations, did this to demonstrate their supposed
> superiority to H P B and to the Masters presentations.

Again you assume (or project) a quality which is inappropriate. Please
refrain.

> If that is true, then I find it inappropriate, and even
> presumptuous -- and also that these lists lack the necessary
> logical links to those original teachings -- who has so far asked
> for and ascertained any of those ?

I find your bombast equally so. If you want to enter into a serious
discussion of the issue and the relevancy of sources, then I suggest you
re-read Stanza 5, Sloka 4 and confer with the supplemental references I
mentioned. Then we can have a go at it. Fair enough?

> Am I wrong in this supposition?

Ah ... yeah, me thinks.

But I understand.

Peace,

-- M