Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00230)

|
|
|Tuesday, October 16, 2001
|
|
|Dear Jerry:
|
|Your observations make me ask further questions:
|
|
|How ought we to make sure of reality? Is there any REALITY?

There is 'A' Reality - but consider the Matrix - have you ever had a
dream so real etc etc


|How do we assure ourselves of the continuity of anything?

Persistence of Vision is the M.O of Maya. When we 'stop' in the moment
this POV falls away.

|Does the manifested Universe employ rules and laws with which 
|to self-regulate itself?

Necessity Rules all

|What is the purpose of life? and,

LIFE is UNIVERSAL DESIRE

|Why does the mind seek for Truths, and Facts?

Coz we as GOD are inherently INSANE ;)










| Analogy (You used a Tree, I use a Diamond )
|
|Theosophy and a Diamond: Lets look at an analogy so that I can
|hope you will grasp and secure the meaning of what I wrote:
|
|
|If I show you a diamond under strong light, and with 
|instruments, you will see its facets and part way into the 
|stone. It is then your memory and opinion concerning it that 
|you will store and may transmit to me or to others. For the 
|physical plane we have a group of converging similarities Is 
|this not similar to your "tree" analogy ?
|
|But if we get into the study of mans psychology, his feelings, 
|desires, ambitions, defenses, thoughts, aspirations, we seem 
|to flounder in a welter of opinions concerning which there is 
|inadequate information until we come to use the 7-fold 
|division into "principles" of Man and Nature. Then things get 
|related and seem to make better sense.
|
|I would call the inner (invisible and intangible planes) 
|concepts, ideas, and would give them the dubious value of my 
|personal opinion. Now, if I can link my opinion with many 
|similar opinions and if I can determine that the basis for 
|those views is similar, then perhaps, I have a chance of 
|saying: "There appears to be a Law operating.":
|
|I am of the opinion that Theosophy comes under the second 
|heading. It is well out of the realm of personal opinion.
|
|Theosophy does claim to be an expression recorded since the 
|beginning of manifestation of the processes used in Nature for 
|that development. It also claims to outline the basic laws 
|under which these changes take place -- their basis, cause, 
|sequence and the various intermediate results achieved -- up 
|to now. I think the evidence that H.P.Blavatsky has offered 
|in ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE (not to mention her 
|numerous articles and letters) is about as voluminous as is 
|necessary to at least demonstrate their presence. Now how are 
|these to be organized?
|
|As to other planes, we need to either visit them or study 
|reports on them and objects or experiences there. On that 
|basis we again form our opinions and give them a measure of 
|verity, or caution as to a too close identification.
|
|No one becomes a "final authority." All have opinions to 
|compare. How will a newcomer look at these if they are 
|interested? Will they seek the irresponsibility of adopting 
|another's opinion? Will they stand on their own feet and 
|research? Have they the patience to seek for truth?
|
|In my analogy: The Diamond remains unaffected and can be viewed
|by others.
|
|Each frames their own opinion and gives it a degree of 
|validity according to their knowledge, experience and 
|credence. No, two see exactly the same thing. It is better 
|to say "something there, and it looks like....." and let the 
|others go and study and frame their own views.
|
|Theosophy as you will have noticed presents a coherency. By 
|all means challenge it. But do not (as you wisely say) accept 
|as fact any description that might include an erroneous opinion.
|
|The matter of practicing any aphorism or virtue depends on the 
|user. Doesn't it ?
|
|If Theosophy is
|
|1. an expression of the ancient history of the development
|of worlds (as classes for experience and progress) and,
|
|2. if it is also a description (as in a Text) of the
|experiences and research of ancient and perhaps wiser students 
|than we are at present, what is the objection?
|
|Theosophy does not expect to make converts. The students and 
|exponents of theosophy (like myself) offer its tents and 
|doctrines for study and critical review (as you so kindly provide).
|
|It does expect that those who approach it will do so as 
|critically as you do, but without prejudice or pre-formed 
|opinions. This does not mean criticism is not accepted, 
|analyzed discussed. It ought to be, The basis from which 
|divergent views arise ought to be discovered.
|
|No matter what School or discipline (or none) a student may 
|use, he will build his own inevitable understanding on at least two
|things:
|
|1. Reports on past experiment and experience,
|
|2. His own work of study and verification, and, he may end
|up breaking new ground.
|
|Now this kind of approach is useful if we can agree that 
|NATURE works under rules and laws of her own, and if our study 
|also reveals that life under such a TUTOR leads to cooperation.
|
|If we desire to remain isolated, then what will be the manner 
|of securing the sustenance for body, soul and spirit ?
|
|The environment still provides the greatest skeptic with a 
|cooperative and inter-active environment. But, why should it 
|if it is rejected ? That is a puzzle, and seems to be 
|reconciled by the proposition that the ONE SPIRIT envelops and 
|supports all, also, that the purpose of life is to learn, and 
|the Universe exists for the educational progress of all "Mind/Souls."
|
|All students will eventually have to frame their own texts and 
|alter their personal opinions into certainty. I don't think 
|this can be denied to them.
|
|Best wishes,
|
|Dallas
|
|==========================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: J---y S
|Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:09 AM
|To:
|Subject: Re Brigitte - Dallas on Meaning of THEOSOPHY
|
|<<<<[Dallas:] Dear Friends:
|
|
|I am of the opinion that one can find a number of references 
|as to what theosophy is. The question is to find those that 
|are fundamental. One could try UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD... It 
|does not matter that Theosophists give a variety of versions 
|as to what they think THEOSOPHY is. They have their own 
|opinions. THEOSOPHY is a definite statement concerning the 
|operations of nature, its history and the place and work of 
|Mankind (here and
|now) on and in and through it.>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|J S
|Dallas, it seems strange to me that you can claim that 
|Theosophy is "fact" and that it is "a definite statement" and 
|at the same time admit that each of us "have their own 
|opinions." You don't seem to realize the illogic in your statements.
|
|
|
|DTB Theosophy is one thing. My opinions are another. If
|they seem to diverge, the error is mine and not to be 
|attributed to Theosophy.
|
|
|
|
|If I see a tree, and you see a tree, and 100 other people see 
|a tree, does that "prove" that a tree exists? Are the physical 
|senses "proof" that something exists? If so, then maybe 
|materialists are right to only accept material reality? But 
|perhaps mutual agreement in our observations only proves that 
|we share similar interpretations of reality?
|
|Universal Brotherhood does not equal Theosophy. Virtually all 
|of the great world's religions teach that we are all "God's 
|children" and so they too teach universal brotherhood. We can 
|probably agree that universal brotherhood is one of those root 
|teachings shared by all religions, but I think Theosophy 
|itself is more than that.
|
|
|
|DTB
|<<<The practice of celibacy is felt to the individual to 
|adopt, depending on his perception of some necessity embodied 
|in that discipline. Theosophy does not rise or fall or change 
|because of it.>>>>>>>
|
|
|J S
|I was using the "need" for celibacy as an example to 
|demonstrate the fact that Blavatsky's "core teachings" are not 
|all universal. Some of her teachings are universal, and some 
|are specific to her linage. When you talk about ancient 
|"Sages" teaching Theosophy and so on, please remember that 
|there were always numerous lineages throughout history. THERE 
|HAS NEVER BEEN ONE AND ONLY ONE THEOSOPHICAL SCHOOL.
|
|
|
|DTB H.P.Blavatsky says there is ONE ANCIENT LODGE [ISIS
|UNVEILED Vol II p. 98-103]. Apparently all the great ADEPTS 
|by whatever designation belong to it. Why would several be needed?
|
|Regardless of what name has been pasted on the system in the 
|past or present, the BODY OF FACTS AND TRUTHS (I say) 
|concerning NATURE (as an interactive and cooperative WHOLE), 
|are seen to be ONE when one traces the sources of ancient 
|religious philosophies back to their prime commencement. 
|Every scholar and student has commented on these analogies and 
|similarities found there in the original and fundamental concepts.
|
|In the course of time, and as exoteric religions were built of 
|traditions and recollections around those basic teachings, the 
|accretions of opinions moved them away from the clear an 
|original presentation -- thus they became changed. If one 
|looks back at the 125 years since H.P.Blavatsky and others 
|launched the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT we will find today the 
|average student (like the Gnostics after Jesus) has espoused 
|some one or other opinions concerning the teachings of 
|THEOSOPHY. Comparatively few of them are really familiar with 
|those teachings so as to identify and locate sources for their 
|expression in the "Original
|Writings." It is not that the "original writings" are
|sacrosanct, it is simply that they seem the best expressions 
|of the facts involved.
|
|If it is a fact (as the Masters) wrote that They and 
|H.P.Blavatsky co-authored The SECRET DOCTRINE (and other
|writings) then what's the problem? If you have read and 
|studied them as I have you will know of yourself whether they 
|make sense.
|
|The faults of students, and their opinions, do not reflect in 
|any way on the ORIGINAL WRITINGS or on THE PHILOSOPHY of 
|THEOSOPHY. Those differences and faults reflect the ability of 
|students to comprehend.
|
|The changes in the renditions of THEOSOPHY, as seen today in 
|various divergent branches derived from the original, reflect 
|only the adoption of the opinions of the divergents. The 
|faults of the "followers" do not implicate the original teachings.
|
|
|
|J S
|When Blavatsky talks about the "Esoteric Tradition" and so on, 
|she is talking about many small schools or lineages throughout 
|the world all more or less teaching similar messages but all 
|differing in many particulars.
|
|
|
|DTB In my opinion, the "esoteric Tradition" is singular and
|unified. When it has been taken and altered, then one 
|discovers the differences introduced. To my mind, these 
|various "Schools" mark the passing on (inaccurately) of the 
|original teachings. And if the differ externally and literally 
|from one another they still give evidence of an interior group 
|of doctrines that are unified. It's the old story of the 
|inadequacy of the "head doctrine" when compared with the Heart 
|Doctrine. Those who espouse the "Head Doctrine" become 
|progressively unable to detect the "Heart Doctrine, " because 
|they are stuck on certain forms and opinions and have not 
|given themselves the freedom of research and a fuller 
|investigation. They are caught up in the "short-cut" they 
|have adopted. But, I think you may not agree to this.
|
|
|J S
|<<<The main question here is : are nature's laws reasonable? 
|should we obey them?>>>>>>>
|
|Dallas, my friend, please think about this: NATURE'S LAWS 
|CANNOT BE DISOBEYED. Do you know a single person who can defy 
|gravity and fly like superman?
|
|
|DTB No in this life time I have not seen that phenomena.
|However H.P.Blavatsky refers to levitation seen and recorded 
|in ISIS UNVEILED. Individual levitation seems to be part of 
|the Law of Nature, rare though that be. She also reports on 
|another rare phenomena and that is a "protection" extended 
|under Karma to rare individuals. And there are also given by 
|her, other historical and eye-witness reports of this and 
|other curious phenomena which show the power of those Adepts 
|who live in and work with nature..
|
|It simply means (to my way of thinking) that a full knowledge 
|of the laws of attraction and repulsion provides physical 
|bodies with this faculty if needed. Gravity is only half a 
|law. I have with me two ring magnets of the super strength 
|ceramic variety. If I place them on a wooden dowel, in one 
|position the attract each other fiercely, in the reverse 
|position they repel each other fiercely by several inches -- 
|illustrating the concentrated strength of a MAGNETIC field. I 
|hear of a train that will fly between distant areas without 
|friction, supported by the repulsive effect of the magnetic 
|fields imposed by electricity on the rails.
|
|Imagine what the strength of those field would be at the 
|Atomic and Molecular levels when the distance is so very 
|small. The power unleashed in the cyclotrons or the 
|bevatrons, or the super-colliders of these days, miles wide, 
|is most difficult to imagine, yet it is there. Who observes, 
|adjusts and regulates those small magnets in nature, so that 
|we have physical bodies to live in ?
|
|
|
|J S
|Do you know anyone who can live without breathing air? This 
|whole notion of "obey" and "disobey" is pure manas, and has no 
|reality at all - we can consciously obey or disobey our own 
|man-made laws, but we have no choice but to obey Nature's 
|laws. But Nature's laws are often not what we think they are 
|(some are esoteric) and they do allow for our free will.
|
|
|DTB I will say that while in India it was rather common to
|hear people discuss the feats of certain Yogis who were 
|observed to survive days, weeks and months even without the 
|air being renewed in their cells. So there is something to 
|this I believe, if so commonly known, in antiquity and 
|contemporaneously.
|
|This I will agree to as we do not know everything, but is it 
|not the mind (Manasic) power to perceive, analyse and 
|understand that acts, and controls the potencies of the lower 
|"principles ?" And if that is true, we, like any other 
|physical object, have to live in harmony with those laws of 
|electro-magnetism, etc., represented by the polar opposites of 
|DESIRE / PASSION and WISDOM / KNOWLEDGE of the Facts of Nature.
|
|Desire and passion form together a faculty (or principle) 
|incapable of self-regulating itself. It is only subdued, 
|channeled and driven to useful purposes by the superior power 
|of MANAS -- the human Mind-Soul. If the desires harness and 
|capture the Manas (so to say) then Kama Manas becomes a 
|veritable demon for evil. Some instances of this I have heard 
|of and actually seen..
|
|The even higher power of BUDDHI-wisdom -- serves to give the 
|Higher Mind the leverage of experience and fact needed to 
|guide the lower mind (which is dominated by desire (KAMA).
|
|
|
|DTB<<But the real effort was to redirect everyone's attention 
|to such concepts as:
|
|1. the immortality of the Human EGO, the SPIRITUAL IMMORTAL
|SELF,>>>>
|
|
|
|J S
|i do not subscribe to any such "immortality." I believe that 
|you got this idea (and many others) by taking Blavatsky's 
|words out of context. I do not think that your continual 
|promotion of this immortality business is doing anyone any good.
|
|
|DTB you either know this for a fact, or it a reasonable
|deduction, or it is an unfounded and unverifiable opinion. 
|If so where does anyone generate their concepts. I can point 
|to several clear references in the writing of Mme. Blavatsky 
|that declare that there are a number of factors that are IMMORTAL.
|
|Some of these are, as I have read and thought abut them as
|continuums: THE ABSOLUTE, SPIRIT, WISDOM, the power to THINK
|inherent in the MIND, the cooperation and regulation of all 
|aspects of Nature. the atom viewed even by our materialistic 
|Science as a "perpetual Motion Machine," the endlessness of 
|Time merged in DURATION, the enormous educative facility for 
|the development of individual intelligence represented by the 
|UNIVERSE as a training ground for all Intelligence -- this, 
|culminating in the free and independent mind of MANKIND. And 
|there are dozens of other cases where "immortality" of the 
|resident Intelligence and SPIRIT is required to make sense of 
|present existence. Do not the fixed rules and regulations you 
|state are evident, give some evidence of a pre-arranged set of 
|parameters in which any evolution can or will take place? 
|From start to finish there is LAW and RULE. Why should there 
|be no continuity for the Spiritual Soul of man?
|
|Of course if man's Soul and Spirit are denied, then you are 
|right. There is no immortality for the Personality (as 
|defined, the Kama-Manas, the passionate lower mend) Death 
|terminates its existence. But this is made clear in the KEY 
|TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) which no doubt you know well.
|
|
|DTB
|<<<<<<2. the UNIVERSAL PLANE OF CAUSES, (from the ATOM to
|the
|INFINITE),>>>>>>>
|
|
|
|J S
|I do not subscribe to any such "universal plane of causes." 
|The teaching of planes of causes and planes of effects is 
|esoteric and very relative, and to jump to the conclusion that 
|such planes exist as such in reality is a wrong 
|interpretation. If such a plane actually existed, then 
|manifestation, an effect, would not be maya, it would be reality.
|
|
|DTB Exactly, behind the "maya" illusion we see, touch and are
|limited by, is the causative plane or source for it. this is 
|what THEOSOPHY EMPHASIZES.
|
|If you deny its probability, then what can be substituted for 
|it ? It is of course true that to the Personality and the 
|Mind of Desire, the spiritual and the permanent are anathema. 
|If accepted then their reform would be an almost unbearable change.
|
|
|DTB
|<<<<3. the LAWS, RULES and Regulations of Kosmos, Earth and Man,>>>>
|
|
|
|J S
|These are agreed to by us when we start out. These rules are 
|fixed and firm so long as we remain here. There is no such 
|thing as "obey and "disobey" - we are not given this choice. 
|Life is like a great game, and one either plays by the rules 
|or one quits, but one cannot cheat. And part of the game 
|itself is discovering what these rules are.
|
|
|DTB I guess we'll not be going anywhere until our accounts
|are settled here. But this is partly admitting the concept of 
|Karma as an adjusting and an educative process.
|
|
|
|STB
|<<<<<<4. the UNIVERSAL URGE to progress and the EVOLUTION
|of all
|beings,>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|J S
|This "urge" is our basic "thirst" or "desire" for life. It is 
|our inherent desire to play the game of life.
|
|
|DTB	And I would dearly like to know where that came from? How
|would mine differ from yours, etc...
|
|
|DTB
|<<<<<<<<<<5. the sameness of all basic teachings common at the
|root of all
|Religions,>>>>>>>>
|
|
|J S
|Except for love and the spiritual relationship between all 
|living beings, I don't see a great deal of common ground 
|between religions (God of some kind, life of some kind after 
|death, and so on perhaps). Religions traditionally stand or 
|fall on their differences, not on their similarities, and 
|Theosophy is not supposed to be a religion anyway.
|
|
|DTB	As far as I can gather "religions" are constructed by priests
|who have ambition and self-service as their motive. They use 
|the expressions of the "Good Law" to hoodwink and bewilder 
|people while preventing them from thinking their way out of 
|dilemmas. One need only consider the many ways in which the 
|TRUE can be falsified. H.P.Blavatsky studies this in both 
|ISIS UNVEILED and SECRET DOCTRINE We can benefit from that review.
|
|
|DTB
|>>> the possibility of reaching SUPREME PERFECTION for
|Man,>>>>>>
|
|
|J S
|Not for "man" no. Such a thought is impossible. The teaching 
|of perfection and enlightenment is all about transcending our 
|human condition now (esoteric - a Path we can tread today), 
|not evolving later from humanity into gods (exoteric - a 
|manas-oriented belief that waits for the future).
|
|
|
|DTB	well I don't know what you define "man" as. The "human
|condition" on the average today is one where the human 
|consciousness is a mixture of desire and knowledge. The 
|bewildered mind would gladly welcome some firm propositions on 
|which it can rest and do its job: that of considering what it 
|ought to do for the future. Your definitions of esoteric and 
|exoteric make no great sense to me. Is it possible to define 
|them ? ] Why "impossible" What basis do you assume ?
|
|
|
|DTB
|<<<<7. the fact of the existence of an undying Race of Wise 
|SAGES who preserve the knowledge and wisdom of our world and 
|universe.>>>>>
|
|
|
|J S
|Not a race as such, but many different and separate small 
|groups or lineages all over the world passing down their 
|teachings through the generations to those who are ready to 
|understand them.
|
|
|DTB	One, or Branches of One or many groups located around the
|World for the benefit of those who struggle to learn -- seems 
|to me to be reasonable. yet, the Philosophy states that they 
|are united, by the study and application of the ONE PHILOSOPHY 
|of the SPIRIT. That is not a subject for divergence, but for 
|Unity, I think.
|
|Best wishes, Hope this may prove useful at least as another 
|point of view.
|
|Dallas.
|
|
|
|Jerry S.
|
|
|
|
| 
|
|Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
|http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
|
|
|