Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00088)

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.

> 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

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 totally subjective. It's all just
personal opinion and choice.

I hesitate to do this, but your 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.

I'm sorry that my mention of these terms and ideas is causing you
discomfort
as you try to fit them into or relate them to your
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. 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. Now I know where you're coming from.

> 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"

I really fail to follow you 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

trying to threaten anything you hold dear. Please adjust to a respectful

distance.

> When we have mastered The SECRET DOCTRINE then perhaps we might be
able to determine the worth of these.

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.

I need to allow for a living experiential progressive revelation. To me
that
is quintessentially theosophical. To do otherwise risks idolatry and
fosters 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. Spiritual self reliance is a valid path.

> 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 inappropriate. 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?

Yeah, me thinks.

But I understand.

-- M