Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00495)

In a message dated 12/13/02 10:22:17 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<There is no such thing as "political truth." It's 
>the same sort of oxymoron as "military intelligence." (Those 
>that think so are running AMOC.:-) "Theosophical truth" is 
>another thing altogether. So, let's cut the c[lapt]rap and get 
>down to business -- in this group.>>
>
>On the subject of "Theosophic truth" and "getting down to 
>business" I can't help wondering why it is that there doesn't 
>seem to be much discussion on this list about the kinds of 
>isssues, subjects that Theosophy, as brought to us by HPB, is, 
>(unless I'm mistaken?), basically founded on: Didn't she go to 
>Tibet to learn about Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism before she 
>wrote Isis Unveiled, Secret Doctrine, and other books and 
>articles? When I try to introduce discussions that I see as 
>related to (or possibly related to . . .) the teachings of such as 
>Tzongkhapa and Asanga and "mind only" and "middle way" 
>schools (as in my recent posts), I'm getting rather short shirft 
>from this list. I can't complain about the Theos-1 list, though.

That's because theosophy is a "Synthesis" of Science, Religion and 
Philosophy... And, like a Chinese menu takes a little from here and a little 
from there. ;-) 

When and if HPB went to Tibet to study Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism, she went to 
the "source" and, I'm sure, she did it alone. And, she also knew that 
Mahayana Buddhism had to be based on a prior and deeper teaching, that she 
eventually found and called "theosophy."

The problems with bringing any particular sectarian religious belief or 
philosophy into a theosophical discussion or study group (such as this one) 
and devoting time to studying it -- is that there are so many differences of 
opinion among the believers in any particular religion, that it is pointless 
and a waste of time to get into discussions about who has the right view or 
the wrong view. 

Theosophy doesn't depend on any particular view that Buddhists, or any other 
religions have about the nature of reality. In fact, theosophy, in its 
fundamental essence and by definition, must precede, and be the fundamental 
basis of all such sectarian views. If one has deeply studied all the 
theosophical teachings, one finds that HPB has already considered each such 
view. And, has given us the answers that have synthesized them all into one 
grand unified and consistent philosophy -- starting from zero, and extending 
through all the combinations and permutations of Cosmo- and Anthropogenesis 
-- until it has covered the entire involution and evolution of this present 
physical universe... (And to some of us, it has confirmed the even deeper 
understandings of parallel, and multidimensional hyperspace universes of 
infinite possibilities, probabilities and potentials.) 

Even science, although it has not entirely arrived yet, has begun to approach 
closer and closer to the theosophical view of ultimate reality. Ref: Kaku, 
Bohm, Sheldrake, Goswami, Lilly, and all the other "new paradigm" thinkers 
that are or have been looking in different directions from the old and 
limited classical, relativity and quantum physics, cosmology, evolution, 
psychology, mind/consciousness study, etc., based on "materialism"... i.e.; 
Everything can be viewed as "particles," the whole is equal to the sum of its 
parts, and consciousness is a function of matter... As contrasted by the 
opposite belief that matter is a function of consciousness, and therefore, 
Maya... Or, by the synthetic theosophical view that both consciousness and 
matter are simultaneously arising as interdependent functions of "all that 
is" or, the primal "unity" as an eternal "trinity." Therefore, the idea that 
subject and object must always remain together and can never be separated is 
a fundamental principle of theosophy -- as they must also be from the 
standpoint of both science and religion.

Considering that all this is enough to occupy our full attention, and until 
we have fully understood the vast scope of theosophy, it is a good policy for 
students of theosophy to avoid discussing one particular point of view in 
favor of any of the other points of view, especially when it comes to matters 
of religion or religious practices -- which, if necessary to know at all, is 
best left to private and individual attention. It is a fact that such 
attention, limited to any single direction of thought and belief, is one of 
the principal causes of "separateness," and, in many cases, could be the 
antithesis of Universal Brotherhood. Much of this is what has led to the 
many wars we are experiencing in these times. 

Certainly Tsongkapa and Asanga were great teachers, as were the Buddha, 
Sankaracharya, Patanjali, Lao Tse, Moses, Jesus, and others... But unless we 
can study their teachings in their original form, or in clear and thoroughly 
explained transliterations, and make our decisions accordingly, there is not 
much point in discussing the opinions of others. As there are three, if not 
more, conflicting ways to think about and consider reality in Buddhism, 
theosophists are better off discussing theosophy as it was directly presented 
by the Masters and HPB -- no matter how far apart from any of these Buddhist 
"concepts" such a "synthesis" appears to be. (Although, direct and pertinent 
questions related to those beliefs whose answers can lead us to a better 
understanding of theosophy are certainly welcome.) The Buddhists can argue 
among themselves if they choose -- but I think that every serious student in 
these theosophical forums want to fully understand theosophy and theosophical 
metaphysics just as it was originally presented. 

As for myself... Since, I have already studied the various and different 
Buddhist and Hindu views (through my own efforts), and compared them with 
fundamental principles of theosophy -- which both agrees and disagrees in 
part with each of them -- the teachings of theosophy seems to make the most 
logical and reasonable sense. By the way, who's to say which "way" is the 
better way? That's for each of us to choose for ourselves after deep study 
and practice based on our own self devised and self determined efforts. 

But for speculators, avowed Buddhists, or others trying to bring 
controversial sectarian teachings into theosophical discussions, I suggest 
(since some seem to think there is a qualified teacher over there) they stick 
with theos-1 for discussing the "Middle Way" concepts and beliefs of 
Buddhism... Or, find other forums where they can discuss the other views of 
Buddhism... Or, even form their own discussion groups to teach and discuss 
their own separate philosophies and beliefs. 

The upshot that we should all remember is that theosophy has no "Dogma" and 
that all its conclusions about origins, law, causes, effects, purposes, 
metaphysics, evolution, psychology, practice, etc., are based entirely on, 
and must be continually consistent with the "Three Fundamental Principles." 
Beyond this, there is no point in further speculation. But, if that's the 
game one wants to play, I suggest playing it in another crib. ;-) 

As for this group... Private study, followed by questions that evoke 
theosophical answers, and answers that teach theosophical principles are 
among the best ways for theosophy as a "synthesis of science, religion and 
philosophy" to be mastered. As for personal enlightenment and self 
realization, all theosophy can do is point the way to the yoga systems and 
private practices that can lead to such goals --without need of sanghas or 
gurus. For starters, Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms, and the Voice of the 
Silence, as transliterated by HPB and WQJ should be more than sufficient. 

I hope this clarifies things a bit. 

LHM