Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00030)

Oct 4, 2002


Dear Friend:

Thanks for the link. I looked over it I will try to answer as best I
can based on what I have learned from a study of theosophy and its
history. The same basis can be acquired by any student who has access
to the "original and unedited LITERATURE of THEOSOPHY. Each one
frames his own understanding an derives an opinion therefrom.

I am truly unable to find the time to go into the wrangle you
illustrate as between Roerich and Bailey. To my reading and view they
add little to THEOSOPHY. They are to me, superficial.

They seem to be concerned mainly with their own interpretation of some
theosophical teachings and basing themselves on those, they appear to
have created a kind of sectarian division -- and that takes one away
from the FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY.

Additionally they disagree on matters related to the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY -- and that has little to do with the fundamentals of
THEOSOPHY. One need only read H P B's article: A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR
[BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH), Vol. XI, p. 378], or her letter:
WHY I DO NOT RETURN TO INDIA [BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH), Vol.
XII, p 156] to know exactly what the relation between THEOSOPHY and
the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY are. It is important to keep these in mind.

I would add that one also should be familiar with her articles: THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY [THEOSOPHIST, Oct. 1886,
reprinted in June 1924 same journal], and THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY:
ITS MISSION AND ITS FUTURE [LUCIFER, August 1888, Vol. II, p. 421] --
those give us her perspective as to the mutual relationship. Sadly,
many students are not very familiar with these 4 articles.

For myself, I have no time to try to grasp, or revive, their (Roerich
and Bailey) point of view in detail -- also I would say: it appears
quite different from H P B's "Message from the Masters" which is the
basis for THEOSOPHY -- and thus diverges -- goes too far
(incomprehensively) from the ORIGINAL.

No one need personally be "put down." We generally don't know enough.
I do know enough to see the difference. That appears irreconcilable.

H P B always explains, the others do not offer that facility. That
troubles me.

That which is of interest to me is not the more recent historical
aspects, or even the various opinions, but, for myself, I try to cut
through to the basis and the fundamentals of what is being said. Are
the opinions useful, general, impersonal and correct from the point
of view of logic -- a logic that any one can appreciate?

I want to know why things are said. What are the PRINCIPLES on which
they are based.

As I understand it, THEOSOPHY is a definite teaching based on the
historical perspectives and actual observations of immortal Great
Minds -- and these records cover an enormous time-period. (see S D I
pp. 276-7) Our present is only a very narrow and superficial slice (a
little over 100 years only) of that which is now in the past covering
observations for millions if not billions of years..

The past cannot be reconstructed with the few relicts and artifacts
that our researchers have found. But the Records of the Lodge of
Great Adepts has such a complete record (says H P B in the
introduction to ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE) -- and they can
place events and trends with great accuracy. In the S D, for
instance, some of these are given. But we can learn from these more
modern offerings, if the reports given are true, and accurate. Again,
any valuation has to be based on universal and impersonal principles,
and not on any pretended or claimed authority. Each one will make
such a judgment for themselves.

Those bases ought to be made quite clear. The rest is (to me) a
morass of opinions, and in some cases of apologies, or more or less
subtle attacks. I detect an attempt to sway minds of those who are
not familiar with the ins and outs of history. I wonder why that is
done.

My conclusion is that after H P B had completed her mission, it became
(and is today) most essential for those who desire to benefit from
THEOSOPHY (I mean ourselves) to study and learn it. Then we have one
basis for judgment.

Of opinions, and the shifting politics on the surface, there are many,
and lead nowhere, and are not even very entertaining.

So I return to the main point that has always meant the most for
myself: What is the basis? Is it made plain? Can I use any part of
it? Can others use it? Does it help on the progress of humanity?

In Theosophy there are NO LEADERS. There are the TEACHINGS. Those
are available to all to study and to apply. In effect, each
individual becomes his own teacher, and for safety and support he can
discuss his findings or speculations (?) with other students with a
view to a consolidation of their discoveries and findings -- such as
we are dong now.

I look on "Agni Yoga" literally, as the words signify: the "fire of
truth, that burns to ashes all personal opinions."

It does not impress me to find that "Djual Khool" is named as the
basis for certain teachings and declarations after H P B's death. One
need only to read what is written in MAHATMA LETTERS by him, on behalf
of the TEACHER, and see if the style and content agree with those
later "teachings." That, to me is highly significant. At no time
does he claim "authority." At no time (in MAHATMA LETTERS) does he
presume to modify or alter the Masters words or teachings. So it is
inconsistent to do so later.

Let me know if this sounds reasonable.

Dallas

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




-----Original Message-----
From: M N O
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 5:12 AM
To:
Subject: Roerich against Bailey...!? NEW ?

Hi all of you,

I recently got an email from the author of the following website.
There are some interesting articles there on comparative theosophical
studies , which could have your interest.

http://www.esotericastrologer.org/AABHPBHR2.htm#HRAAB

A view:
Comparative studies should maybe be done more often in Theosophical
circles.
And no one should put anyone down because they don't follow the
majority in a group or a Theosphical Society.
Wisdom teaching is wisdom teaching; - as long as the theosophical
aspirant mean no harm everyhting is all right.
Fear and power struggles in Theosophical groups and organizations
should not be considered the PATH forward.
That which is important is the relations among people, and that one is
showing others how to be an example - a theosophical example on wisdom
and compassion.
The group leaders fears for others hidden agendas or their raise in
importance, --- I think more often than not lead theosophical
organizations to split apart.
Of course that is not the only reason.

cut