Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00092)

Dear Mark:

Let me make some comments below

Dal

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Kusek [mailto:mark@withoutwalls.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 4:28 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Student Speculations

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.


Dallas	Of course it does. I chose to study Theosophy under
H.P.Blavatsky as closely and as directly as I can. Specially in
view of the Masters' certificate making them co-writers with Her.


> 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.


Mark
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.


DALLAS	As to charlatanry and fraud. Try reading Cranston's
recent biography where every trace of that kind of accusation has
been set to rest. It is a matter of history and not speculation.

H.P.Blavatsky was very careful and she neither claimed
infallibility nor authority. She attributed the matter of
doctrines to the GREAT LODGE, two members of which volunteered to
provide such information as would make the Theosophical effort
useful to mankind.

Where have the Masters directly claimed infallibility ? Or,
disclaimed it ?

I will also agree with you that your "LIVING GOD" certainly has
it "all over the books." Theosophy is divine common sense. So
agreement would be there. However when agreement is NOT there,
the research begins.

-------------------------------------


"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?


DALLAS
Because to my understanding and perception, they are all
potential and internal to us as faculty with the "INNER GOD" of
each of has ability to use.

-------------------------------------


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.


DALLAS
Well it is perfectly true that I am a student devoted to
H.P.Blavatsky and her teachings. But I have read enough of the
productions of others who followed Her and tried to "improve on,"
or "correct her" to know that they have their won ways of
studying and working. We have plenty of time in the hereafter to
find out what it the better way. I am content not to
characterize anyone, since each is an individual with an 'INNER
GOD." And presumably all those "INNER GODS" are from the same
ONE SOURCE.

----------------------------------------


> 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.


DALLAS
YES INDEED, but if I am wrong or my conclusions are inaccurate at
least I have exposed my self to being corrected -- which is what
I hope will happen if my particular "path" is not a good or
useful one. How else can one learn?

-----------------------------------------------


> 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.


DALLAS
Talking about other planes is OK with me. But how does one
ascertain if the knowledge is accurate and necessary? If it has
value then it will always correlate with the planes of experience
and of action we already know. As far as I can see I have no
"pressing business" wandering there or striving to pierce through
to get there. So I will wait to see if eventually the
information I accumulate will be useful, and demonstrable.

--------------------------------------------


> 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?


DALLAS
Charity and generosity for all that lives and which our Karma
puts into contact with -- if this sounds vague, then it is. I
try to put the metaphysics Theosophy provides into practice,
that's all. To each his own.


> I guess I am blowing off steam, and apologize for shattering
your 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.


DALLAS
I know that, no need for us t "back away."




> 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.



MARK
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).


DALLAS
NO I would not arrogate to my self a judgmental position. I do
lament the fact that with so much that comes DIRECTLY from the
guardians of Theosophy so few seem to value it.



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.


DALLAS
H.P.Blavatsky in my opinion did not present us with a pastiche or
a collage -- and that can be ascertained by studying hat she
wrote.

I don't feel at all "destabilized." And I write as I see
hings -- and say so, so that all I write is in the form of
observations and questions. When I quote I try to give chapter
and verse, soothers may also research and advise me if I am wrong
in my surmises.

I agree with you we cannot grow unless we make use of what we
have got and ask probing questions or present doctrines that may
contradict accepted positions.


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?


DALLAS
I NEVER SAID THAT, did I ? I think she described some of her
experiences and drew on what the Masters know to illustrate other
statements.




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


DALLAS
If you think I am dependent, and idolize, then consider what I
choose to be dependent on, and idolize (which I do not think I
do) and use my own mind and power of perception, discernment,
logic, etc.. as impartially as I can. This, again is in my
endeavor to learn as much as I can and apply that which seems
reasonable.



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.

-------------------------------

DALLAS
Those are useful and valuable statements. No I do not want to
suggest I am after securing or imposing any uniformity. I do
suggest that a solid study of Theosophy as originally presented
will assist any student.. If you look at S D I 272-3 you will
see there the basis on which theosophy was erected. Why not seek
as we all do for those common ideas at the base of knowledge and
its application ? How can we best do that ? Of all the many
"yogas" perhaps RAJA-YOGA (or Occultism) is the best to look for
and adopt.

In this connection perhaps you might care to look up
H.P.Blavatsky's article PRACTICAL OCCULTISM (Lucifer, April
1888) as this I found most useful in assisting me.

------------------------

> 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?


DALLAS
I don't. I don't know yours, I merely expose mine for your
consideration..

-----------------------------

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.


DALLAS
I made no such assumption. I told you what my conclusions were
as I use them to direct my conduct. Nothing I said was in the
order of comparison, criticism, etc... it is all INQUIRY. After
all I have no basis but my own evolved so far to use.

------------------------

> 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.


DALLAS
Well -- I guess so. Sorry if this was delicate to you. Purely
unintentional. As I said I have no basis for offering anything
more than my own conclusions. And why refrain from those ?

---------------------

> 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?

-----------------------------------

DALLAS Again I apologize. I don't think it is "bombast." (At
least it was so intended, but, rather a sincere exposition of my
way of looking at Theosophical doctrines, history, etc... But
then, opinions differ.

As to the study of the STANZAS -- I do that willingly.


> Am I wrong in this supposition?

Ah ... yeah, me thinks.

But I understand.

Peace,

-- M

DALLAS
Dear Mark, all I can say is that I am disturbed to have said and
written things annoying to you. It is NOT intentional at all. I
have held these views for many years. I am waiting for someone
to tell me I am wrong. Perhaps I am tactless, but then, that
also is not intentional.

Best wishes,

Dallas




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