Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00278)

Tuesday, August 28, 2001

Re: HOW ARE WE TO DEFINE THEOSOPHY ?


Dear Friends:

I suppose we could go endlessly trying to define "TRUTH." I
also suppose that there will be many opinions based on what we
have experienced or hope to experience.

Suppose we take it that Theosophy offers us definitions. Those
definitions come from an ancient Lodge or Group, of Scientists,
who claim to have been observers of the processes of Evolution on
our Earth since it began. To stretch our mind this implies,
immortality -- of the power to Observe and Witness, but not of
the physical body, which always and eventually dies and is
dispersed. [S D I 272-3]

If this were possible, don't you think they would realize that
human incredulity would attach itself to any such claim?
Immortality? That is only "GOD'S" condition and state. How can
there be Scientists who also claim to be GODS ? Nonsense ! And
forthwith any pronouncement made from them, or on their behalf,
becomes tainted forthwith with doubt and suspicion.

How has H P B built up a possible platform of confidence? In
ISIS UNVEILED she has brought together evidence. This evidence
she draws from literature, history, myth and tradition, and from
a panoply of religious and philosophical speculations that
stretch far back into the night of time. From this vast panorama
of possible sources she has shown us that they tend to
demonstrate the underlying existence of a universal system of
laws and events that serve to reconcile many gaps in our
knowledge so far very limited to physical observation.

She demonstrates the protruding evidence of strange events and
powers exhibited by certain individuals, and by a hidden world of
force, power and purpose that underlies the living forms with
which we are always in contact, but which we might all agree we
do not thoroughly understand. We might all agree on the use of
such word-ideas as the indefinable SPIRITUAL, or the curiously
influential Psychic, but it remains for us to identify for
ourselves the difference between them.

H P B uses a curious phrase in The SECRET DOCTRINE in regard to
Spirit. In the 2nd Vol., on
p. 103, in the middle she speaks of the "morbid inactivity of
pure spirit." She has been discussing the fact that the 4th
"principle" (Kama-desires and passions) and the 5th "principle"
(Manas, mind, intellect, logic, etc...) work together at this
cycle to produce an ACTIVITY and this in us might be translated
as "self-exertion."

We are reminded of the THREE QUALITIES that Krishna in the
BHAGAVAD GITA says form in their equilibrium the entire universe
and every being in it. These are SATTVA (Spiritual Purity),
RAJAS (activity, desire, passion) and TAMAS (inertial,
inactivity, the tendency to sink to rest). When these are
combined, all aspect of living are to be derived from their
interrelations. Each needs the others to help balance their
particular "excellence."

If we look at the Diagram she gives us in S D I p. 200 we can
se that this present cycle is one where the 4th principle (GLOBE
"D") and the fact we are in the 5th RACE, seem to imply an
evolutionary cycle of the blending of Kama (4th) with Manas
(5th). Kama (through selfishness and desire) can degrade Manas
(Mind and thinking), and enmesh it in personal opinions, fancies
and selfishness. On the other hand Manas can elevate Kama,
enliven it, widen its purview, offer it a field of work and
purpose in which it can seek, serve, and lead.

In the 2nd vol. of the S D on p. 176 an old verse is quoted:
"Desire first arose in It, which was the primal germ of mind' and
which sages, searching with their intellect, have discovered to
be the bond which connects entity with non-p-Entity" [ this is
again considered a little differently in S D II p. 578-9. Still
another version with a slight change will be found the
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY p. 171 under KAMADEVA. [ This Kamadeva is
described there as "...the first conscious, all embracing desire
for universal good, love, and for all that lives and feels, needs
help and kindness, the first feeling of infinite tender
compassion and mercy that arose in the consciousness of the ONE
FORCE, as soon as it came into life and being as a ray from the
ABSOLUTE." Then this verse is quoted wit the addition
":Sages...have discovered in their heart to be the bond..." The
rest of the definition ought to be carefully studied for the
esoteric and occult meanings implied there . It is of value to
all of us. It is like the puzzle that the GAYATRI verse presents
{ see W Q Judge Articles, (UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS ) Vol.
I p. 583; [PATH Vol. 7, p. 301, January 1893.]

As I see it, we are right in the middle of the most momentous
discover cycle of the ages. Are we going to look for the
continuation of our growth into the daring discovery of wisdom,
or are we going to pedestrianate in the toils of personal and
selfish ambitions, doubts and fears ?

If we look carefully at what is reported of Miss Grace Knoche's
statement -- she left it open ended so that each could work it
out as best they can. It is only through individual effort that
any valid growth occurs. We all see things. We then think about
them and seek to relate them to past experience or past
teachings. We seek intuitively for those lines of force that
unite any even or phrase to the divine SOURCE that pervades us
all. This is a living Universe and the TRUTH of this matter is
always the ever-animating SPIRIT at the CORE OF EVERY BEING.

For this reason UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD is the one object that
unites us all -- and that is the First Object of the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY as well as the CAUSE of the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT

H.P.Blavatsky wrote in LUCIFER, FOR February 1888 a wonderful
article: WHAT IS TRUTH ?
I that at one place she say: "Man has to know himself, i.e.,
acquire the inner perceptions which never deceive.... An
impartial, unprejudiced mind, illuminated by pure Spiritual
Consciousness."
[UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS - H P B Articles I, p. 4]

"Selfishness is the first-born of Ignorance...the impassable wall
between the personal Self and Truth....Selfishness kills every
noble impulse in our natures..." (p. 5)

Concerning Theosophy she declares (p. 8 - 9) "Theosophy is
divine knowledge, and knowledge is truth; every true fact, every
sincere word are thus part and parcel of Theosophy...Theosophy
allows a hearing and a fair chance to all. It deems no views--if
sincere--entirely destitute of truth."."

Towards the end of the article she declares: "with regard to
absolute and relative truth ... Outside a certain highly
spiritual and elevates state of mind, during which Man is at one
with the UNIVERSAL MIND--he can get nought on earth but relative
truth, or truths, from whatsoever philosophy or religion." (p.
10)

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Meredith [mailto:bilmer@surfsouth.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: Theosophical Fundamentalism


----------
Jerry S <gschueler@earthlink.net> wrote:

Grace Knoche once said to me that there are many Paths to
Truth, and
Theosophy is just one of them. Anyone who thinks this way is NOT
a
fundamentalist.

---------
Hi Jerry. I have been following the discussion between Mauri and
you. BTW
congratulations on drawing Dallas back into a discussion with
Mauri.

I am interested in Grace Knoche's conclusion that you cite
above. I
wonder did she also tell you what the Truth was that could be
arrived at by
various paths? Is it that the Truth is that there are many Paths
to Truth?

Also I sense a connection between the statements "There are many
paths to
Truth" and "Truth is a Pathless land." While on the surface they
appear to
negate each other, do you sense any deeper level where these
statements
might support each other?

Finally, I have been thinking much on your postings that point to
no self
beyond illusion. Have I surmised it correctly? I have been
thinking
about the mainstream position that through self-less brotherhood
we gain
something desirable for ourselves at some future time. I wonder
about the
motivation behind the veil that prompts us to adopt a self-less
course of
action. It seems to me that it may be more difficult to stop
fooling
ourselves about our selfish motivations than we think. Only when
self has
zero value and concepts of future self have zero value can we be
said to
act in an unselfish manner. The only time I can imagine self
having zero
value is when it does not exist. If we desire a future union
(reunion) with
the One because we believe that in that union we will finally
find our
Self, then might we still have a ways to go on the pathless path?

I thoroughly enjoy your thought processes and wonder if you have
any
comments to the above ramblings of an undisciplined mind.

Bill




---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: bilmer@surfsouth.com
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net