Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00009)

Wednesday, January 02, 2002


Re "Occult principles" -- Where are they? what are they ?
Who knows?


Dear Friend:


Your question needs I think some further definition.

May I offer ?


1. Does one want to discover what THEOSOPHY has to say about a
subject or question?


2. Do we desire to consider the opinions of various students of
Theosophy on a subject.


In my opinion,

1)	if one desires to discover what THEOSOPHY --as H.P.Blavatsky
presented in on behalf of the MASTERS OF WISDOM -- the ELDER
BROTHERS of humanity, has to say or teach us, then what better
than to discover and read and present her actual words for
everyone to read and think about?

These do not bind us. But, they probably will be found on
examination to express a fair view of things. Theosophy is for
freedom and fairness of expression and desires to establish an
"even-field" for all to consider in ay particular application.
Hence it emphasis on "fundamentals." These are also insisted on
commonly, in mathematics and logic. In the realm of personal
opinions -- they are usually undesirables.


2)	By all means discuss the implications that any student
presents. We are all free to do that. There is no "thought
police" in fact or in concept. Since we are all liable to make
our own opinionated interpretations, we will probably find that
the view we have constructed is different in details from the
constructs or opinions of others. That this is so, does not
determine who is right. [ Theosophy does say we are individually
responsible for our thoughts, feelings and actions -- and the
form the basis for our Karma and that of all the rest. --
humanity and other natural constructs. We are a great family.]

Determining what is right demands a very rigorous process of
analysis and integration to see if the ideas we have built really
agree what the facts that Nature continually displays to all who
investigate her workings and conditions. If we base our thinking
on an inter-related view of the UNITY of all Beings, then we are
more likely to choose to do "the generosity of good," than "the
selfishness of evil."

In my opinion Nature does not arbitrarily change and make
different patterns -- Science in its minute search and
investigation of the conditions already in place, shows it has
learned to depend on certain natural FACTS, and trust them to
repeat invariably.

So, my conclusion is that it is I and others of us, who may apply
too much of our pre-judged opinions, need to be most cautious of
our own views. If that should be the case, then, those that are
solely based on our private opinions, may proceed to skew our
vision or our report of what is actually there. All
investigations should have 2 or more participants so as to
eliminate as far as possible any personal biases.

As far as I am concerned, I desire to know the truth of things.
How they are in fact. And, how they work. Also there ought to
be no departmentalizing of nature -- as Nature includes
everything. There is nothing we do, think, say or feel which is
not gong to have an impact on others. We are the ones
responsible for those impacts. Do we desire to have them return
to us? We ought to constantly ask that, since one of the factors
(Karma) that operates (under NATURE) in the world, sees to it
that all we do eventually returns to us as circumstance or
accident. We have nowhere to hide.

The value of Theosophical attitudes in research is that no
prejudice be allowed. Further that every individual be allowed
full freedom in any and all directions.

The "Teachers" of today are our selves. We have at least the
following tools in common:

Integrity, sincerity, honesty, diligence, a desire to be fair,
and accurate. We do not feel any constraint in approaching any
subject, and we seek to reconcile opinions already on exhibit
with the facts we and other current researchers discover.

But above all we are humble. No one knows it all. No one is an
"authority." Nature has placed existing systems in place so as
to support this freedom we all have. If we investigate and peel
back the surface Nature presents on any item, we will discover
honesty, uniformity, universality, impersonality and
practicality.

What shall we do" Discover or uncover the fundamental basis from
and on which Nature works.

Some think that the original presentation of THEOSOPHY does this.
Others doubt this or are skeptical for other reasons. Since we
are free to disagree, there is no reason why we do not pursue our
own course of study -- and then, discovery, or theory in hand,
we display it to others for criticism. After all, we seek for
TRUTH, and none of us "knows it all."

If however we with pre-judgment (or ignorance) desire to take a
"short-cut" we might elect to place some person or system (like a
religion or political "party") as an "authority" for us. The
question others might well ask is: Are you quite sure that this
"authority" is universally and minutely correct? What proofs of
accuracy and honesty, sincerity and impartiality are offered? In
short: Expose everything. If it is true and correct, then all
will use and adopt it. If it is erroneous, then its faults will
be exposed. And a healthy reform will be substituted for guile.
The "personality" has no where to hide in such cases. This
process rubs off the "rough edges" it has developed, ad restores
it to the harmony of the Universal. After all we are, each of us
a "Microcosm" of the great "Macrocosm." Of so we have to adopt
that as a concept for momentary use -- and thing we are portions
of the divine, lining and working with other such portions, for
our mutual benefit. Yes, we are individuals, but we are
cooperators, essentially and forever.


BLACK MAGIC

You ask about "black magic." As I understand it, it is the hope
we can extract some "powers" from natures' secret store, and use
them for a personal profit, domination, or private benefit. But
in fact that never works.

One of the basic concepts of those who seek for and adopt
"black-magic" is that they may somehow escape the effects of
their wrong applications. [ Many of our religions are based on
the hope that the priests may intercede on our behalf (is we pay
them enough), and help us avoid the stringent account we will
have to pay to Nature and to the VICTIMS we have created.
Innately we know we cannot escape. But our cowardly Lower Self,
which acts slyly and selfishly, confuses us with hope we may
arrange to have the "sin pass unnoticed, and we may escape with
undue profits."]

This is precisely what Theosophy opposes. As I see it, it says:
If there are laws and processes that Nature holds secret, then
the reason for that is its innate desire to protect the weak, the
poor and the ignorant from the rapaciousness of the clever,
selfish and opinionated.

It is the ethico-moral aspect of knowledge that Theosophy demands
we respect. Nature will not offer, or expose any important
secrets to any one if they are going to be abused, and especially
if they are going to be Karmically vicious.

"Black-magic" implies the use of knowledge (mage) in a
detrimental way towards others for self-benefit.
It is a misuse of Nature's powers, energy and knowledge. Only
the morally depraved have been clever enough to erect a screen of
seeming morals that permits them to whip up the ignorant fervor
of individuals who feel oppressed, and divert it away form
themselves (as the true clever instigators) to some object or
purpose that ultimately profits them.

I ask for how long? A life-time? And then what ? Who gives
relief and solace to those who have suffered or who have been
made the unwilling and unwitting victims? Where is there justice
in this?

Considering the matter broadly, only those who become wise so as
to HELP OTHERS will ever be worthy to receive Nature's secrets of
power and energy. For their prime motive will be to HELP AND
ASSIST, never to selfishly apply any advantage their knowledge
provides.

FREEDOM and SELF-DEPENDENCE

This is how I understand the application of the quotations you
offer from the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) can be viewed, and used.

But such applications are always to be monitored by the
indwelling SPIRIT-GOD ( The ATMA -- the HIGHER SELF) In this
we already share. It is common. It is the basis for the
Universal brotherhood that is the 1st object of Theosophy and the
original THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY . We ought to also consider the
fact and the impact of reincarnation an Karma -- universal
Evolution towards the great Goal of SUBLIME PERFECTION is another
consideration.

Basically the eternal fight is an internal one, and is conducted
with the Mind as spectator between the extremes of WISDOM
Buddhi) and IGNORANCE and SELFISHNESS (Kama-passions and
desires). Periodically there is a general churning in Nature and
each individual is forced t show themselves as member of one
party or the other: the party that is for TRUTH and UNITY, and
that which is for the darkness and isolation of SELFISHNESS.

In this, each member or associate is entirely free. The
monitoring that Nature has instituted as a matter of precaution
and safety is a "built-in" factor. It has been done and is in
use by Her through the super-sensitivity that "spiritual
omniscience" provides. It is the limitation that universal Karma
imposes. It is automatically setup in all nature's
departments -- to protect all its many components from tyranny
and oppression by the selfishness of those who acquire some small
portions of her powers.

If one desires to trace the history of such abuse, then the
references in The SECRET DOCTRINE to the "Atlantean Sorcerers"
provide an illuminating example. We need only look
dispassionately around us at our present civilization of fear,
passion, selfishness, anger, desire, greed, and other vices,
which operate blatantly -- concealed with a shallow hypocritical
veneer of seeming virtue, prevail

I hope this may prove to be of some help,

Best wishes,

Dallas

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




-----Original Message-----
From: M---n S-----t
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 10:23 AM
To:
Subject: Re: "No two are agreed upon any fundamental occult
principles. . . . "


Hi Daniel, and all of you,



Thank you for the below. I agree a lot on it.

One issue I would put forward - is to stop - dead-letter reading
and bible-study (- i.e. the view that only Blavatsky - counts
etc. ) !


And where are the teachers of today - who hasn't drifted away
into - black magic ?
Where are the spiritual 'weeds' ? Are they meditating in a far
away galaxy ?



But, what about the following quote from Blavatsky (with my
remarks in ***) :

________________________________________________________________

ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case,
besides Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no
philosophy in particular: we cull the good we find in each. But
here, again, it must be stated that, like all other ancient
systems, Theosophy is divided into Exoteric and Esoteric
Sections.



***None and all. - Who follows that - today year 2002 ??***



ENQUIRER. What is the difference?

THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are
free to profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or
none if they so prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and
ready to carry out one or more of the three objects of the
Association. The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body
for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on practical
instead of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be Christians or
Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists
or Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be
either a philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and
other old literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to
help, if he can, in the carrying out of at least one of the
objects of the programme. Otherwise he has no reason for becoming
a "Fellow." Such are the majority of the exoteric Society,
composed of "attached" and "unattached" members. [An "attached
member" means one who has joined some particular branch of the T.
S. An "unattached," one who belongs to the Society at large, has
his diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is
connected with no branch or lodge.] These may, or may not, become
Theosophists de facto.


***And who follows - the following remarks made by Blavatsky :
***



Members they are, by virtue of their having joined the Society;
but the latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who has no sense
for the divine fitness of things, or of him who understands
Theosophy in his own -- if the expression may be used --
sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome is, as handsome does"
could be paraphrased in this case and be made to run:
"Theosophist is, who Theosophy does." (H. P. Blavatsky: THE KEY
TO THEOSOPHY Section 2)



______________________________________________________________

I hold, that all to many Theosophical groups and even
organizations do not follow this view of Blavatsky's today - year
2002. If they at all understand, what she is thinking about. They
are not - as open - as Blavatsky wants them to be in the above.
And also not forgetting - the dead-letter view.

What do you have on my - Alice A. Bailey article no. 4389
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4389) Caldwell
?
And others ?

from

CUT