Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00248)

Hi, Morten. Some thoughts below.

<<<Now it is a fact, that HPB can be quoted for saying something like that the doctrine of Theosophy is "almost identical with the teachings of the Upanishads" ( I can look this online article up for you if nescessary).>>>

God, I hope not. Of course, the Upanishads have inner meanings and have to be interpreted ...


<<<Now anyone who is familiar with the Upanishads will know, that the texts they were (and are) written in the language of Sanskrit, which HPB herself considered a later offshot from the special language called Senzar.>>>

I am also acquaninted with Sanskrit. And the Senzar business has to be taken on faith. My own jury is still out.


<<<I think, that one will find the answer in the Upanishads on how to make things 'fit together' - theosophically speaking.>>>

I read the Upanishads many years ago, and it did nothing for me.


<<< and that the word 'Atma' has more than one meaning to HPB >>>

Please give me some examples.



<<<It is also clear to me, that depending on ones consciousness - that the theory we often call 'spiritual development' with the theories about the globes, rounds, planes, karma etc. is for the beginner in Theosophy - taken as a theory alone. >>>

It is far too complex for beginners, my friend. Some Theosophists have been studying it for years and still are clueless. And it is NOT just a theory. It is very real.


<<<<"The Lord dwells in the heart of all 
beings, O Arjuna, whirling by Maya all beings( as
if) mounted on a machine.">>>>>

Quotes like this suggest you interpret Theosophy as a religion, with Lords and Gods and whatnot. I suspect that Blavatsky would be horrified ...


<<<"Those who fix their thougt on Me,
contemplate Me, always devout, endued with
supreme faith, those in my opinion are the best
Yogins.">>>

This kind of stuff is for Theosophical devotees who practice a form of bhakti yoga. This is OK, I suppose, but not my cup of tea. This seems like psychic personification to me.


<<<The term, that Atma = Brahman is wellknown in the eastern teachings of wisdom.>>>

Yes, but probably only a handful of people on this planet understand what it means.


<<<Brahman is in Bhagavad Gita the 1. Logos of HPB.>>>

And both are poetic personifications.


<<<In short: To the beginner Atma is changing, because one gets more wise as time goes by. To the knowing one - Atma is both changing and not. And to the more wise Atma is - and never changes. And to the more wise - no answer sometimes also is the proper answer to students.>>>

I offered my view that atman is maya, gave some quotes, and gave some logical rationale for why this is so. You are giving me your opinion without any logical rational (I view your words above as totally illogical - atman is VIEWED from manas as permanent and eternal but when it is EXPERIENCED it is not. Give me one single example of what you say above. You can't can you?). Peter offers his opinion and give me quotes which actually substantiate my own view. 

Now, we are all free to believe what we will, and we can all quote the gospel till the cows come home, but I am still waiting for a logical rationale as to how atman can be permanent and eternal.

I hope, if nothing else, that this challenge of mine makes people think a little. We should not be too sure that every literal word of Blavatsky's is gospel.

Jerry S.

--