Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00170)

Thursday, January 10, 2002

Dear Ian, and S-----, and other Friends:

May I break in at this point to observe:

Is it not valuable to have as a tool, a single set of
definitions, we can all refer to? As students of Theosophy, all
working under the basis of the SECOND OBJECT , we can adjust our
vocabularies and include the key words of other systems -- I find
H P B has done this in both ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET
DOCTRINE -- and also has provided us with a The THEOSOPHICAL
GLOSSARY to help us secure most of the definitions we will need.

She makes the claim that the teachings given there are not hers
alone, but, are the result of the records kept by a band of
immortal SAGES -- Men who made themselves WISE, and who have left
their mark in the past as great reformers, prophets, teachers of
mankind, and have always assisted NATURE ( the UNIVERSE) in its
intelligent processes, and progress. She says that THEOSOPHY is
not hers but is a condensed version of the secret records kept by
the WISE -- who form a single body dedicated to the assistance,
recording and preservation of EVOLUTIONARY change down the
indefinable periods of time, which we call, in general, cycles.


“Esoteric (ism)” -- in the Dictionary says: “Abstruse,
belonging to the circle of those initiated into specialized
teachings, private, withheld from open avowal, hidden.,
concealed, etc…”

“Occult (ism)” -- means “secret.”

She adds in various places: “the Esoteric Philosophy
states: ….” or, “Occultism says: …..” In my experience I
find some important statements are then made.


H.P.Blavatsky says in a number of places at the beginning of her
books ISIS UNVEILED and SECRET DOCTRINE that this Esotericism
exists and the secret ancient Lodges have always been in
existence. [ See ISIS UNVEILED II pp 98 - 103]

A single materialistic view of our universe and living seems
inadequate as the CAUSAL and the ETHICAL/MORAL aspect of action
thought and feelings are usually not identified or probed.

Stability and continuity, to my mind include increments of growth
arising from experience, and the effort to learn what one can
during the period of manifestation.

If this is correct the LEARNER transcends the stage and the
limitations through which it passes.

If there is a band of LEARNERS, then through experience and the
arduous work of recording they leave traces of what they have
witnessed, and the time track is HISTORY.

If we grant to these LEARNERS to extension of consciousness we
would term “immortality,” then the records become very old (IN
OUR TERMS). this of course remains to be proved to our
satisfaction. There is the additional barrier that we know our
time-period of life in our current bodies is limited. Death
terminates. But if in truth there is IMMORTALITY as a fact, then
there are records that illustrate and define the difference. To
spoof at the concept and deny it without investigation is
prejudice. Obviously nothing is learned further (singly or
jointly) for the moment.

If correct, then the passage and the learning adjusts elements of
the LEARNER to the REALITY and ACTUALITY of the PERFECT MODEL..
And this might as well be a review of the passage of the
PERMANENT through the experiences of the transcient. It two
transcients make records, the element of accuracy becomes
doubtful -- as to time.


In my illustration,

Do we not need to know who the LEARNER is?

What is the nature of the stage and process of learning?

What is the result of all this expenditure of energy 1) to the
Learner, 2, to the environment, 3) as a combined change that
results ?

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: IH
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: A SINGLE ESOTERICISM - 0f the GREAT LODGE of
ADEPTS -- BUDDHA: THE GREA...

In a message dated 09/01/02 11:42:24 GMT Standard Time, S
writes:




Ian,

After liberation - who, or what, is it "develops a deep
compassion and
caring"? Who or what is it sees and feels through the eyes of
reality?
Who is it "becomes" and knows we are all empty, "there is only
one
single thing"?
Hi S If you would like it in the corrrect terminology (which
I try to avoid on the list as it means comunicating becomes very
hard) : there is no becoming and no-one who becomes. All remains
as it is.

Kind regards,
Ian
---



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]