Theos-Talk Archives (July 2002 Message tt00119)

July 13 2002

Dear Reed:

Many thanks. What you say is of course mainly correct as I
see it. I expressed my opinion and this time I send a few
quotes from The SECRET DOCTRINE as a kind of :back-up."

I have no objection to spending as much time as people want
on the Bible, but to me it is so muddled that disentangling
it is tedious. I would far rather know what JESUS TAUGHT.
Dis he give good reasons for his teachings?

In my opinion H P B gives us a far clearer view of
pre-history than any amount of delving into the Bible does.
However ....

Of course I am not rejecting the 2nd Object. Lets compare
what Jesus teaches with what Buddha and Krishna taught (see
ISIS UNVEILED, II 537).

Christianity, is found by me to carry an incubus: the OLD
TESTAMENT. It is quite unreliable. a student of the Zohar
and the Kabala can make sense of it. But for me, insofar
as the mangled history of the OLD TESTAMENT is concerned, it
seems quite useless because of its maltreatment to warrant
time spent on it. Those who want details can easily get
them from ISIS UNVEILED . Why not direct them there ?

I fail to see why it (OLD TESTAMENT) was appended, or
rather used as a preface to the TEACHINGS OF JESUS. Of
course I endorse those as representing the same moral and
ethical teachings found in the more ancient Buddhism and
Hinduism.

Yes we can wend our torturous way all through the OLD
TESTAMENT but to what avail? Let those who are interested
do that. In any case that will happen.

Why not focus on what JESUS taught ?

I think the OLD TESTAMENT is a trap.

In The SECRET DOCTRINE ( I XLI ) H P B speaks of the
"Karma of Israel" and says it points to the "Karma of
cunningly made-up History, for events purposely
perverted..."


(I 267) By contrast, speaking of the SD and Theosophy, H P
B says: "...as The SECRET DOCTRINE teaches history--which
for being esoteric and traditional, is none the less more
reliable than profane history..."

(I 230) "...the Jews were perfectly acquainted with sorcery
and various maleficent forces; but, with the exception of
some of their great prophets and seers like Daniel, and
Ezekiel ...they knew little of, nor would they deal with,
the real divine Occultism, their national character being
adverse to anything which had no direct bearing upon their
own ethnical, tribal, and individual benefits--witness their
own prophets, and the curses thundered by them against the
"stiff-necked race."


(I p. 10-11) "Read by the light of the Zohar, the initial
four chapters of Genesis are a fragment of a highly
philosophical page in the World's Cosmogony....Left in their
symbolical disguise, they are a nursery tale an ugly thorn
in the side of science and logic, an evident effect of
Karma. To have let them sere as a prologue to Christianity
was a cruel revenge on the part of the Rabbis who knew
better what their Pentateuch meant. it was a silent protest
against their spoliation, and the Jews have certainly now
the better of their traditional persecutors."


(II 436 top) More on the first 6 chapters of Genesis --
"profound hatred of Christianity... Jehovah used (or
allowed) to pervert christian concept of God)


(I 115) "the Aryans never made their religion rest solely
on physiological symbols, as the old Hebrews have done."

(I 383 middle) "...Here again one perceives the immense
chasm between the Aryan and Semitic religious thought: two
opposite poles--Sincerity and Concealment. "


( I 444) [ examples of the secrecy and the perversion
thereof ]


(1 576 - middle) On the "national god of the Jews."


(I 390 - bottom ) (continued)


(II 200) On the nature of the several Semitic tribes --
materiality


(II 470-1) (On the origin of the Semitic tribes)


These are only a few of the many references I have
concerning the situation. I think they are important and
set a stage. Those were, of course, written 11 years after
ISIS UNVEILED was published.

Best wishes,

Dallas

PS Yesterday I tried to access the B N Web Page and it was
declared inaccessible.

also, one of my postings to blavatsky.net was rejected by
Lyris.

What's happening ?


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



-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [mailto:carson@blavatsky.net]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:11 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: RE: From Adam to Noah

Dallas,

You say below "And this has left us today, hardly 125 years
after H P B's death, with vague opinion instead of accurate
knowledge of what theosophy teaches. What will the fate of
Theosophy be ?".

We have the same concern though perhaps slightly different
answers.

I should tell you a little of my very recent experience.
Just two weeks
ago I was engaged in discussion with a new acquaintance with
a
philosophical view. He began discussing the meaning of the
TWO trees in
the garden of Eden. Unfortunately I didn't feel versed
enough on the
garden of Eden from a Theosophical viewpoint to add to the
discussion. It
was a golden opportunity to discuss Theosophy from a
profound point of
view. And I partially missed it.

Then just last week, another new acquaintance said something
like "So and
so who lives around here says Blavatsky says we are all
plants first." It
was another opportunity partially missed. But I will
eventually get back
to her. Now on Genesis and evolution, have we brought out
the ways in
which the first chapters of Genesis show in veiled form the
teachings of
Theosophy on evolution? This is a hard issue and requires
work. I have
been only reading the posts in cursory fashion (something I
hope to change)
but I assume we have not. Did we really show the relevance
of Cain and
Able to Theosophy's teaching? I may have missed some
important posts (and
probably have) but I don't get the impression we have shown
how this is
actually symbolism of Theosophy's teaching.

So I concur with Larry and in spades. If anything, I would
like to see us
doing more - not less - to bring out Theosophy in this
discussion of the
early chapters of Genesis. I think Larry is right that such
activities
ultimately lead toward greater understanding of the
Teachings of Theosophy
and help us reach others.

Since you have expressed your "druthers", I will express
mine with an
example. Years ago I was filmed by NY ULT as a participant
in a one hour
discussion that had as its topic just the first sentence of
the bible. Can
you imagine a one hour long discussion of just one sentence
of the bible
and obviously conducted in the spirit of being "in the light
of
Theosophy"? (I believe that film is no longer being shown
anywhere since
it is an hour long not a half hour.) Personally I would
like to see us go
into that much detail. I don't think we should pass by this
analysis of
the bible without considering, for example, the meaning of
the phrase "In
the beginning". We should bring forward what HPB says on
that issue along
with any other available research on it.

Dallas, it appears to me that you are rejecting the second
object of the
Theosophical movement (to study ancient and modern religions
philosophies
and sciences and show the relevance thereof) as established
by
HPB. Personally I think it is still important. I am of the
impression
that at least in NY ULT on Friday nights it is still the
underlying theme
of that class - though people have not always said so. And
it seems to me
that each of us, at least in a private way, needs to come to
grips with the
question Larry raises of why HPB spends so much time on
this.

I will try to get my act more together and offer some posts
to put where my
open mouth is.

Reed




CUT