Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00093)

Jan 6th 2003

Dear Friend;

I am not familiar with "dead letter Theosophy." Also thank you for the
good quotations form the
S D that you sent me to read.

You are right, I did not want to raise that debate. It is fruitless in
any case.

I think it ought to be clear to us all:

Any proof of right or wrong currently advanced in regard to THEOSOPHY,
lies in a study of what is written and its inherent logic. Does it
dovetail with the original teachings?

What should be clear, in my opinion, and as far as I am able to
express it, is that Theosophy is a REPORT -- a statement of facts and
of laws in effect, and those are basic to the whole organization of
the Universe, of our world, of ourselves, and they are prevalent
throughout Nature. And that being said, remains an opinion of course,
and has to be checked and verified by each for themselves. The same
criterion prevail in respect to H P B's teachings and books.

She says they come form the Masters of Wisdom, She says that they are
statements of fact and of history. We need not accept any of them
until we are satisfied they seem to be accurate and reasonable. And
that is what we are all doing.

I would avoid calling it "dead letter." That is because it is alive
until proven unreasonable. No statement of fact or of observation can
be placed reasonably under such a designation until it is proved that
it is untrue. I wonder who first produced and advanced this
designation and why was it done?

No claim can make it true. It would be an error to place a
"personality" ahead or instead of the Philosophy. I am of the opinion
that none of us have the stature or the ability to produce a SECRET
DOCTRINE or an ISIS UNVEILED. I have also met in reading and study
some who have presumed to "correct," "improve upon," "provide more
advanced information," etc... than did H P B or the Masters in Their
writings. The "proof is in the pudding."

What I most strongly object to are edited editions of H P B's works
put forward as copies of the originals, without the new editors
marking the changes that they have introduced. That is not fair to
new students, as they are not warned that those changes have been
made. Hence I always recommend the ORIGINALS.

Insofar as I am concerned, I offer my testimonial to its value ( I
mean THEOSOPHY) as I have tested it and found it useful, coherent and
logical so far.

I also find that it reconciles the gaps and differences that the study
of science and Nature have revealed.

As scholars and investigators have tried various processes of
reconstruction, using hypothesis and theory, that have attempted to
draw a reasonable portrait of development regard to our past As far
as I can understand it those reconstructions are not without serious
gaps. But because I say so, does not make anything true or untrue. It
merely says I have arrived at some different conclusions, and offer
them for consideration..

But getting back to what THEOSOPHY presents to us, I would say that
anything that agrees or adds to that stream of thought and the
narration of acts and events ( of that, which we call Theosophy) ought
to be considered a part of it.

As I recall, it is claimed that Theosophy antedates all known systems
or religions, and, each of them originated in the work of one or other
of the Elder Brothers, attempting to bring humanity in a certain area
back to the lines of fact and to a consideration and an obedience to
the laws of Nature, that are universal in scope, impartial as is
Karma, and readily provable by all. In both her books ISIS UNVEILED
and The SECRET DOCTRINE, H P B starts by speaking of the ancient Lodge
and its records (see particularly ISIS UNVEILED II 98-103).

Theosophy, is first a statement of facts in nature, but it is not a
static system, since it continuously adds to its lore the record of
the way in which the living decisions of mankind impact the whole area
of joint living, and thus, the karma of the past is seen to be
simultaneously discharged and built on for the future. Life after
all, is ever progressive. We in our study and discussions are
continually adding to that advance.

As to 1975 and the statement that the "messenger" was to come. We can
all look back and say, as so many have who hoped for a revelation:.
The "messenger' may have come, may have done the work (or may still be
doing it) and is unrecognized so far, this may or may not be true.
Personally I do not know. But I would also say that idle statements
are not generally made on serious matters in Theosophy.

And if I did, what good would it do to me, or to others ? Just
another "claim."

Look at all those who clustered around H P B, and read their
conversations and correspondence as recorded -- those give us an idea
of the impact of H P B and of the teachings of Theosophy upon them as
students. And as such, and because of their personal temperament, they
received and profited, or did not profit, from such a presence.

In any case it neither adds nor subtracts from THEOSOPHY.

Now look down the years since 1891 when H P B's body died. What in
general has been the progress and fate of the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT ?
I see clusters and nodes of activity, but by and large there is a
valuable increment of progress in deep understanding of what Theosophy
is, and how it can be individually applied.

Thank you again for the good references in the S D.

I hope I am clearer now?

Dallas


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



-----Original Message-----
From: Morten
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:59 AM
To:
Subject:: on our toes What is THEOSOPHY

Hi Dallas and all,

My views are here presented:


Thanks Dallas.


Your mail clarified some issues.
And your views are yours, and that seems to clearly be all right.

A sentence below made me write some more...

Dallas wrote:


"You are correct is saying that H.P.Blavatsky is one of the sources --
> yes, the most recent of the known messengers."

My Sufilight answer and questions:


Well, here we go again.


This claim of yours above is not easy to prove. Right ?


I could ask to your remark above: Known by who ? With what right ?
And should we just look at the word "Theosophy" as a dead-letter when
debating, who the most recent messenger was or is ?


I think there are a number of people who with good reason could claim
that their favorite person or writer is the last messenger, - while
escaping
the use of dead-letter Theosophy.


The teaching of dead-letter theosophy was a teaching Blavatsky didn't
favorize. (The Secret Doctrine vol. 1, p. 305, 318, 337; vol. 2, p.
305,
797 - there are more if needed...)

I will now use some quotes from Blavatsky, so to make it clear, that
none
has patent on - who the last messenger was within Theosophy - or the
maybe
better pronounced --- the wisdom tradition . There is NO shred of
proof,
that Blavatsky has been the last one !!!


But I will not point my fingers at anyone particular later messenger
myself.
But, I am willing to discuss, those which could candidate for being
such a
later messenger. Blavatsky said, that such a messenger would come past
1975
(- not likely a dead-letter year or ? Do you know if it should be read
using
the dead-letter ?). Maybe the messenger has been on the stage
somewhere...?
Anyone ?
(It is quite funny to experience the - great silence, which emanates
when
this question is asked here at Theos-Talk).

*******
(The Secret Doctrine vol. 1, p. 305)
"This every scholar now knows. The able lectures of Mr. G. Massey
alone are
sufficient in themselves to convince any fair-minded Christian that to
accept the dead-letter of the Bible is equivalent to falling into a
grosser
error and superstition than any hitherto evolved by the brain of the
savage
South Sea Islander. But the point to which even the most truth-loving
and
truth-searching Orientalists -- whether Aryanists or Egyptologists --
seem
to remain blind, is the fact that every symbol in papyrus or olla is a
many-faced diamond, each of whose facets not merely bears several
interpretations, but relates likewise to several sciences. This is
instanced
in the just quoted interpretation of the moon symbolized by the cat --
an
example of sidero-terrestrial imagery; the moon bearing many other
meanings
besides this with other nations."

(The Secret Doctrine vol. 1, p. 318)
"But while supposing that the whole cycle of the universal mystery
language
will not be mastered for whole centuries to come, even that which has
been
hitherto discovered in the Bible by some scholars is quite sufficient
to
demonstrate the claim -- mathematically. Judaism having availed itself
of
two keys out of the seven, and these two keys having been now
rediscovered,
it becomes no longer a matter of individual speculation and
hypothesis,
least of all of "coincidence," but one of a correct reading of the
Bible
texts, as anyone acquainted with arithmetic reads and verifies an
addition
or total.* A few years longer and this system will kill the dead
letter of
the Bible, as it will that of all the other exoteric faiths, by
showing the
dogmas in their real, naked meaning."

(The Secret Doctrine vol. 1, p. 337)
"Or, in plainer and stronger language, there is as much esoteric
wisdom in
some portions of the exoteric Puranas and Pentateuch, as there is of
nonsense and of designed childish fancy in it, when read only in the
dead-letter murderous interpretations of great dogmatic religions, and
especially of sects."

(The Secret Doctrine vol. 2, p. 305)
"The untiring researches of Western, and especially German,
symbologists,
during the last and the present centuries, have brought every
Occultist and
most unprejudiced persons to see that without the help of symbology
(with
its seven departments, of which the moderns know nothing) no ancient
Scripture can ever be correctly understood. Symbology must be studied
from
every one of its aspects, for each nation had its own peculiar methods
of
expression. In short, no Egyptian papyrus, no Indian tolla, no
Assyrian
tile, or Hebrew scroll, should be read and accepted literally.

This every scholar now knows. The able lectures of Mr. G. Massey alone
are
sufficient in themselves to convince any fair-minded Christian that to
accept the dead-letter of the Bible is equivalent to falling into a
grosser
error and superstition than any hitherto evolved by the brain of the
savage
South Sea Islander. But the point to which even the most truth-loving
and
truth-searching Orientalists -- whether Aryanists or Egyptologists --
seem
to remain blind, is the fact that every symbol in papyrus or olla is a
many-faced diamond, each of whose facets not merely bears several
interpretations, but relates likewise to several sciences. This is
instanced
in the just quoted interpretation of the moon symbolized by the cat --
an
example of sidero-terrestrial imagery; the moon bearing many other
meanings
besides this with other nations."

(The Secret Doctrine vol. 2, p. 797)
"Thus far have proceeded the rough outlines of the beliefs and tenets
of the
archaic, earliest Races contained in their hitherto secret Scriptural
records. But our explanations are by no means complete, nor do they
pretend
to give out the full text, or to have been read by the help of more
than
three or four keys out of the sevenfold bunch of esoteric
interpretation,
and even this has only been partially accomplished. The work is too
gigantic
for any one person to undertake, far more to accomplish. Our main
concern
was simply to prepare the soil. This, we trust we have done. "

*******
So the physical written teachings of Theosophy or any book of wisdom
should
not be read using the dead-letter key alone of the 7 keys. (The Secret
Doctrine vol. 2, p. 305)
I hope this are clarifying the situation, on WHO the last messenger is
or
has been, on, what some dare to call "Theosophy", while they from time
to
time use the dead-letter meaning of the word.
Certainly - Theosophy is more than "Theosophy" in a dead-letter sense,
with
its theosophical writer HPB, and for some also Judge, Besant,
Purucker,
Bailey, etc... There are of course different levels of teachings. But
who
knows more than 2 or 3 of the 7 keys, - I claim only a few. Because
the
author(s) (- one wonders how much the Masters helped Blavatsky -) of
Secret
Doctrine don't even claim to posses all of the 7 keys !!!
Do the readers agree on this ?

What to me makes Blavatsky's writings special compared with a number
of other
writers is her teaching on the 7 keys, and the rejection of the
dead-letter
"Bibles" from different religious teachings, and not only the
Christian
religion, but also later interpretations of her writings and
teachings.
But let us remember that the use of words in the writings and
scriptures of
Blavatsky are old, which some of the above quotes already should have
shown
the reader.

One could ask why I use up my time with such an email.
But the present day circumstances makes me do it. I have this
strangers
opinion, that makes me seek to create peace on this planet. And peace
can
sometimes come, when people understands, that - using the dead-letter
is of
no good.
I think as some recently wrote here at Theos-talk. One should know
them on
their fruits ! I agree.
What are or has been the fruits of Theosophy ?
What are or has been the fruits of H. P. Blavatsky ?
What are or has been the fruits of Mahatma Gandhi ?
What are or has been the fruits of Mother Teresa ?
What are or has been the fruits of Martin Luther King Jr. ?
What are or has been the fruits of Gurdjieff ?
What are or has been the fruits of Lady Diana ?
What are or has been the fruits of Annie Besant ?
What are or has been the fruits of Sathya Sai Baba ?
What are or has been the fruits of L. Ron Hubbard ?
What are or has been the fruits of Rudolf Steiner ?
What are or has been the fruits of O. T. O.
What are or has been the fruits of The Realians (cloning) ?
What are or has been the fruits of Vivekananda ?
What are or has been the fruits of RamaKrishna ?
What are or has been the fruits of Rama Maharishi ?
What are or has been the fruits of Aurobindo ?
What are or has been the fruits of Ibn El Arabi ?
What are or has been the fruits of Idries Shah ?
What are or has been the fruits of Hazrat Inyat Khan ?
What are or has been the fruits of various newer Indian pundits and
Rishis
?
What are or has been the fruits of newer politicians ?
What are or has been the fruits of religious heads like the Pope,
Dalai
Lama etc...
What are or has been the fruits of ---- etc...
What are or has your own fruits been ?


These were my views.
Feel free to comment or do your best...



from
M. Sufilight with a happy smile...and not even standing on his
toes...>:-)


----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-B-Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: on our toes What is THEOSOPHY


> Jan 6 2003
>
> Dear friend:
>
> As far as I can determine the two statements are congruent.
>
> I can only writ for myself, as I understand it. and of course my
> statements may not agree with the views of others. But, then I am
> content to let them determine what is correct or valid by means of
the
> same kind of study which all good students pursue. I can only speak
> of what I have found.
>
> Theosophy is a name currently given to a universal system of thought
> and the use (thinking) that is made about it. Theosophy (to me) is
a
> synonym of wisdom. You are correct that Theosophy will be found
> everywhere. It is therefore designated a synthesis of religion,
> philosophy and science. These three are inseparable.
>
> If it is agreed that it is universal and eternal, then it underlies
> all expressions and names given to it at any time or anywhere.
>
> So if you please there are two THEOSOPHIES.
>
> 1. The eternal -- as an expression of LAW UNIVERSAL. and
>
> 2. The temporary -- as the current name given to Mme. H P
> Blavatsky's system -- which she claimed was NOT hers, but came
through
> her, as a messenger of the Masters of Wisdom.
>
> The distinction is made plain in the opening pages of the KEY TO
> THEOSOPHY (HPB)
>
> As to the nature of the Masters -- this is covered in a number of
> articles and in the first pages of both ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET
> DOCTRINE
>
> In speaking of Theosophy, I write concerning the universal system of
> which the book The SECRET DOCTRINE is an epitome. It describes the
> rules, ethics and laws of the Universe.
>
> In speaking of the Masters I speak of those ancient and deathless
> GNYANIS (or DHYANIS) who are knowers and preservers of this
system --
> which they periodically disseminate among mankind so that a
knowledge
> of it is ever present. A record of this past wok is made available
t
> us to scrutinize in ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE
>
> You are correct is saying that H.P.Blavatsky is one of the
sources --
> yes, the most recent of the known messengers.
>
> I hope that this makes my position clearer.
>
> Dallas
>
> =================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morten
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 5:55 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: on our toes
>
> Hi Dallas and all of you,
>
> Salaam Aleikum,
>
>
> My views are presented in the below:
>
> Thanks for the good words.
> I agree a lot with them.
>
> But Dallas, what strikes me in the below writing of yours is this:
>
> A:
> Dallas wrote:
>
>
> "All that we know of Theosophy has come though H P B as Their
> Messenger. But, we cannot adopt any specific attitude unless we,
> through study, are prepared to explain this fully."
>
> B:
> Dallas wrote:
>
>
> "They, the MASTERS, are Universal. And "They" are the "property" of
> no
> creed or sect.
>
> The (or any) THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, if it claims to be the sole
channel
> to the Masters, is in error. No one who proclaims this can prove
it."
>
>
> My Sufilight answer:
>
>
> Dallas how can you combine these two statements of yours A and B ?
>
>
> Who do you define Theosophy, literally or in broad terms ?
>
>
> To me your - A - statement is false.
>
>
> My view is. Theosophy is more than HPB, and one can freely chose HPB
> as ones
> main source to learn from...or another one.
>
>
> But wisdom is wisdom.
>
>
> And HPB was actually the first real source literally speaking on
> Theosophy
> (by the use of the word) since 1875.
>
>
> Dallas wrote:
>
>
> "Theosophy makes only one claim and that is: it presents in a
> condensed form the HISTORY of evolution and of the qualities and
> potentials that underlie this continuing event."
>
> My Sufilight answer:
>
>
> Yes and condensed it really is !
>
>
> Else I agree a lot with you Dallas.
>
> I think this one from you Dallas is especially good and I support
it,
> if
> Theosophy - has the meaning "a part of the wisdom tradition of all
> ages" :
>
> "If you take my assurance as correct, then you can be making the
error
> of choosing me as an :"authority." I am not. I merely say you can
> find out for yourself. Then, you become the authority for what you
> know or have reasoned out. Truth is a common factor, and is shared
> and participated in by all -- no exclusions. None of us are in any
> better position by mere membership.."
>
> Theosophy is self-proving, and the Masters demonstrate this in
> everything they have written."
>
>
>
> Feel free to comment or do your best...
>
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/