Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00327)

In a message dated 11/11/02 11:16:16 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Quoting from Dallas's post:
>
><<"It is time Theosophy should enter the arena,." wrote 
>the Great Master in a letter in 1881 "For our doctrines to 
>practically react on the so-called moral code, or the ideas 
>of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc., we have 
>to preach and popularize a knowledge of Theosophy." [T 
>A & N. p. 189.]>>
>
>"Popularize" in that context brought to mind Leon's 
>models, among other things. That is, I tend to agree with 
>Leon that, by scientizing certain aspects of Theosophy, 
>(by using a popular language of the age), one might reach 
>those for whom other kinds of introductions to 
>Theosophic issues might be far less applealing.

That's right.

>On Theos-1, Gerald wrote:
>
>((((Mauri, I shouldn't say anything in response to Leon, 
>who is not even here to defend himself. But I feel the 
>need to at least say the following: 
>
><<<Leon wrote: <<Have you any idea why the SD was 
>subtitled, "A Synthesis of Science, Religion and 
>Philosophy?" >>>
>
>My response to this question is:
>
>Science stands for intellectual knowledge
>Religion stands for faith Philosophy stands for 
>experiential knowledge
>
>All three are necessary lest Theosophy "be nothing more 
>than another religious dogma destined to die on the 
>vine?" Emphasizing intellectual knowledge alone will kill 
>Theosophy in only a few generations. It is already doing 
>so, and Theosophy is today in its last gasp because of its 
>over-emphasis on intellectualism. The "head doctrine" is 
>intellectual knowledge, the "heart doctrine" is 
>experiential knowledge and the one will get us nowhere 
>without the other. >>>)))))))

All I can say in response to this is; "All that goes without saying." 

But, if being a well rounded theosophist requires a balance of all three 
aspects -- I haven't found one single teacher (in more than 50 years of 
searching) who could show me (starting from my own position on the path and 
my own propensities for learning) the perfect way to understand and practice 
each direction in this modern age. So I was forced to learn the "head 
doctrine" from one teacher, the "heart doctrine" from another, and then had 
to find out for myself the rest of the "intellectual" and "experiential" 
knowledge I needed to gain the "faith" that when I arrived at "self 
realization" or oneness with the Supreme Spirit, I would have the ability to 
carry out the Bodhisattva work without having to ask anyone else what there 
was to do or say to any person in accordance with his/her degree of 
understanding, his/her current state of consciousness, and his/her immediate 
psychological, emotional, physical and/or spiritual needs. But this wasn't 
all that difficult.

Amazingly, I was lucky enough to find out about 30 years ago that all those 
separate teachers were speaking to me directly through HPB. All I had to do 
was hear them, study, concentrate, and follow their suggested paths of 
meditation (they offered me Patanjali and the Voice of the Silence to 
practice) -- while learning to supplement their teachings with the new 
knowledge of modern sciences and technologies (which governs our present 
lives) that HPB didn't have access to... And, as she advised me directly -- 
to "Write [my] own Secret Doctrine in the language of [my] age." So, after a 
few years of such study and meditation -- we were able to write, in one 
afternoom, the entire ABC theory and discourse (which, several years later 
was posted on my web site) -- and correlate it with all the head and heart 
doctrines of theosophy that are thoroughly explained in the original SD (with 
all its ancient scriptural references) and other writings of HPB and the 
Masters. So, what more (at least for me) was there to know or continue to 
practice? 

Think about this! Isn't it amazing how HPB managed to teach the heart 
doctrine while expounding the head doctrine, and managed to teach the head 
doctrine while expounding the heart doctrine? It's also amazing to me that, 
outside of a few theosophical teachers I've come across at the United Lodge 
of Theosophists over the past 50 odd years, I haven't found another who could 
match HPB's ability to do that. And, even then, none of them had enough 
scientific knowledge to fulfill my need to get into dialogues with trained 
scientists in many disciplines, and make my case for theosophy in their own 
jargon. 

Thus, as it is now, we (whenever I need the right words to explain a subtle 
point, I ask HPB ;-) do not teach any one method -- since we can only answer 
questions in the same framework that they are asked. So, for the 
scientifically minded, we can lead them to the theosophical synthesis through 
their interest in scientific and technical understandings. For the 
philosophically minded, we lead them there through their interest in thinking 
about the nature of things and their ontology's. For the religious minded, 
we can show them the proper path of meditative practices to awaken their 
inner understanding of the true nature of reality and their position in it. 
And for all of them, while we give them exactly what they ask for, we manage 
to show them the questions to ask themselves and, thereby, turn them toward 
whatever they are missing in the other directions of theosophical 
understanding and practice. 

>Leon wrote: <<Why don't you tell us what you think 
>theosophy really is "more "realistically about"? >>
>
>As I see it, there would seem not to be any solution, or 
>"more realistic approach to Theosophy," that by-passes 
>anything that's relevant to a broader and lasting 
>understanding of Theosophy. In other words (?), 
>regardless of whichever doctrine or approach one might 
>be inclined to follow, if that approach is not wisely 
>enough balanced with aspects of intellect, faith, and 
>experience, the result might not be particularly 
>representative of "Theosophic progress" . . . I'm making 
>a "general comment," here, and not accusing anybody of 
>not being wise enough. We all seem to be "wise enough" 
>in our various "own ways," basically, often times, 
>but/"but" . . . 

Yes. But . . . What? Studying theosophy has nothing to do with results. 
One either needs to know, or not -- depending on where one stands on the road 
to enlightenment, and what the confusion is in one's mind. Wisdom is knowing 
what one needs to know or do. And that has to be left for individual choice. 
Each of us is on a different level of understanding and openness to new 
ideas. So, theosophy is as theosophy does. That's all there is to it. If 
you need the head doctrine to do better as a theosophist, then that is what 
you direct your questions and your studies toward. If you need to devote 
yourself to a higher power or principle, then that is the direction of your 
search. That's why it says in the Declaration of the United Lodge of 
Theosophists; "It regards as Theosophists all those in the true service of 
Humanity" ... And, "Welcomes . . . all those . . . who desire to fit 
themselves, by study and otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach 
others" It's that "doing" (based on one's "knowing") that makes one a 
successful theosophist. And what we can learn intellectually (scientifically 
and philosophically) and religiously practice -- is what we need in order to 
make that action the best we possibly can do at the level we are presently 
at. Progress comes from just that -- without having to think about attaining 
anything for oneself. 

Practically, positively and hopefully,
LHM

>Speculatively,
>Mauri