Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00337)

Saturday, December 15, 2001

Dear Steve:

Surely you jest !

What about REINCARNATION and the persistence of the SPIRITUAL EGO
in the after-death states until reincarnation occurs under Karma
? Do you discard this possibility ? If you do then some of the
most profound and important aspects of theosophical metaphysics
and doctrine are excised from consideration.

And why should not an Adept, as I hold that H P B was, and is, --
not continue to work (after the physical death of her last body)
using the Nirmanakayic body (the spiritually individualized body)
? Of course Karma prohibits demonstrating this fact to most
others, but it does not make it a falsity.
All adepts have the faculty of doing this and are always in
contact with each other, even though with our physically limited
senses may not perceive this, except occasionally. You may of
course disagree with me on this, but, I would wonder why.

It does lend a great deal of mystery (because it deals with the
underlying force-field energies that locate and adjust all
physical matter, and are the real creators of all structures and
form of MATTER--such as we know it) to speculators, especially
those who would rather never see an Adept like H P B again in
their midst. [ As an example: take the fictional accounts of
the possible return of Jesus to this time and civilization --
that claims Him as their founder. 1. Dostoevsky in THE BROTHERS
KARAMAZOV wrote that brilliant chapter called THE GRAND
INQUISITOR. 2. Upton Sinclair in the early 1920s wrote a
book -- fiction -- "THEY CALL ME CARPENTER" in which Jesus visits
Los Angeles in the turbulent 20s. There are a couple of
examples. And there are more, like Neville Shute's "AROUND THE
BEND." ]

Of course if you resist and refute these 4 basic ideas:

1. the Immortality of all the components (monads -- SPIRIT /
MATTER) of the Universe (including Man), and

2. Reincarnation, a process whereby the Spirit/Soul (the energic
center) of every being and humanity, progressively acquires fresh
bodies when the present forms are exhausted and reach the end of
their usefulness, and

3. Karma (universal and individualized LAW and laws -- impartial
and omnipresent in the Universe, and

4. Universal Evolution.... then there is no point in
continuing.

Personally I think those ideas make far more sense (when
considered as a working hypothesis) than those that are currently
circulated in the various religions and speculative
philosophico-psychologies of today (and which remain largely
unproven). My observation is that they divide us through
'cul-de-sac' analysis, and lack that synthetic quality which
NATURE exhibits in all her numerous interlocking departments. If
NATURE (as a sensitive and infinitely conscious and intelligent
ENTITY, did not take care of us physically -- at least -- then
who would, and who is? That is an aspect of our existence which
is rarely addressed. H P B has considered it in her presentation
of Theosophy.

I say, and maintain with all the vigor I know how to express, H P
B is very much alive wherever she may be and whatever she may be
doing. So are the "Masters." So are all the Noble Souls down
the ages that have lived and worked, trying to draw men's minds
to consider something else than a mere handful of years of life
as the only opportunity they have to become wise and live in
spiritual accord as brothers with the rest of humanity and nature
as a whole. But so, too, according to Theosophical teachings,
are we all, when this physical body dies. Each life is like a
day at school. And we are all immortal pupils, with the same
potentials. Do we resent in school our teachers, and the
professors at University, or the Savants who do prime research
into Nature for the advancement of Science ? We know that with
determination and effort we too can transform our ignorance and
"no knowledge" into sound memory and reasoning that will enable
us to emulate them to the full. We need only make such a
determination and then apply our WILL to the job.

Most believe the end of the body (death) is the end of
everything. I happen to disagree. And for myself I have good
reason to be sure of that. Death is a prolonged SLEEP. The
"waking up" in a "new body" is a resumption of one's CONTINUING
life.

Maybe Theosophical doctrines are not interesting to you, or only
partly so. But it is you (and I) who make a selection from the
total menu of metaphysical and philosophical ideas and facts that
Theosophy deals with. Its curriculum covers the universe in both
breadth and depth, as the History of Ideas reveals -- it has
always had its Witnesses and their testimony shows a continuity
of vision and of thought, that makes for the unification of
Science, Philosophy and Religion.

On the other hand the fragmentation of the study of nature into
departments makes for a disunity among disciplines such as we
witness today. And our development of Science and investigation
into Nature is only about 3 to 400 years old. Our concepts of
earlier civilizations are largely theorized on fragments and
relicts, and hypothesized on concepts of civilization current
today, but which may have been totally different then. When
written or ceramic records disappear, we judge that the condition
of mankind everywhere is "savagery. and ignorance." Yet from
time to time paleontologists and archeologists dig up evidence
from deposited strata millions of years old of sciences and arts
such as we have developed or use currently. Paradox. No
explanation. Usually the evidence is "forgotten" or concealed.
One ought to make an extensive catalog of these. I believe a
couple of archeologists in the San Diego area have published this
recently.

But no one (in my esteem) has a license to slander (speak or
write unproven ill) the dead. And to do this in repetition of
what others may have written, unless they have adequate proof
(not suspicion, or doubt, or skepticism), but PROOF, that that
which they write is TRUE and ACCURATE, I would say, it is even
more dangerous to do this when it relates to those Great Ones who
occasionally visit us (humanity) to try to draw our hearts and
mind to truly benevolent, virtuous and spiritual things. I would
say in view of her work that H P B did, she was one of Those. I
find no better way to judge her stature and value than through
her WORKS. When any one of us are able to write an ISIS UNVEILED
or a SECRET DOCTRINE we may claim some parity with Her and
criticize, if that is still necessary?

How would you characterize Theosophy? Useful or useless ? If
you want to chop it up, then how will you proceed ? Do the
pieces that appeal to you support one-another ? But now let us
look at another aspect:

I would add that when any of us has written an ISIS UNVEILED and
a SECRET DOCTRINE and written the articles and letters that an "H
P B" has, then we may claim to truly value her impact and work,
and judge Her value to humanity -- and the future. I am
perfectly sure that theosophy will not vanish and go away. It
has altogether to much logic and structure in it. As time
passes., and as we study what she conveyed, we will have acquired
the knowledge and the wisdom to perceive Her actual History, to
know Her, and to write with accuracy about Her.

In the meantime, we have, I believe, a duty to study what she has
written and either prove or disprove to ourselves its veracity
and usefulness. If there is something true and spiritual about
that, something that elevates us, then on what basis shall we
write and perpetuate others' opinions that may appear to derogate
and vilify her character ? I cannot understand that type of
approach or reasoning -- it makes no logical sense.

I am curious about this continual irritating itch that some have
to speak or write ill of others. Especially after they are dead
and unable to explain or refute slander and innuendo. Yes, the
body that was used, and in the case of H P B, nobly used, for our
benefit and that of the world, is now dead. But does that
obliterate the Spirit and the Noble Soul ? Does that confound
the WORK OF TEACHING OF THEOSOPHY ?

Interesting that some seek to vindicate their right to continued
slander by pointing a debasing finger at others. But the
justification looked for, does not include a study of the work
and life, as a whole, of the individuals used as examples. Nor
does it always and invariably provide the reader with the sources
or references which they can check so as to verify if one is
dealing with a "level field."

When such critics can show us an ISIS UNVEILED and a SECRET
DOCTRINE and a lifetime of devoted labor for OTHERS' sake, then
we may listen to them. But if it is slander, and carping
criticism, it leaves the reader with a distrust of such writers.
their inaccuracy does this.

Of course you may disagree with my views and position, but then
you have the same freedoms I have. I choose to defend H P B
because of what she has written and because of the MASTERS'
regard, expressed numerous times about her. But then you may
choose to disregard that also. You then have your reasons --
which are unclear to me.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Stubbs
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:37 PM
To:
Subject: RE: : Did Blavatsky smoke hashish and drink alcohol?

Dear Friends:


Is HPB still alive? If not, then Dallas TenBroek is
commenting on a woman who is DEAD! Was HPB still
alive when Sylvia Cranston wrote her "biography"? If
not, then Cranston was commenting on a woman who was
DEAD! She was dead dead dead dead dead.

According to their own standards of comment, Dallas TenBroek and
Sylvia Cranston have no right to comment on a woman
who is dead. Only I have a right to comment on a
woman who is dead. Or, more precisely, to comment on
the STATEMENTS of a woman who is dead and on the
STATEMENTS of her acolyte who is also dead. If they
were truthful, then their statements said what they
said and what they said happened, happened.

According to internal evidence in their own
statements, there was smoking going on in Philadelphia
and New York. And it wasn't a pack of Lucky Strikes
that they were smoking, either, folks. People who
smoke a pack of Luckies don't see flowers coming out
of the walls and a dozen pencils where there is only
one. No, ladies and gentlemen, I submit that this was
a different brand of smokes than one could get from
just any old cigar store in those days.

Rawson, Woolf, Coleman, Devemey, Godwin, and many,
many orhers merely corroborate the statements of the
two principals to this drama. Not that they need all
this corroboration. I believe HPB and Olcott, whether
corroborated by good and reliable testimony or not.


SS
CUT