Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00105)

Hi Dallas. It seems you are having difficulty grasping the concept that every great teaching that has ever been presented to humanity is always presented in a way that is appropriate to the specific needs of specific people AT A SPECIFIC TIME. In the Middle East, the specific force a teaching carries to affect people is called "baraka." After a while all teachings lose their baraka, and with it a certain kind of life, as knowledge needs to be presented in different ways according to which knowledge has already been presented, the form in which it has been presented, and the manner in which people have (or have not) been affected by this).

This is a simple enough concept to grasp and it makes perfect sense. The reason you may be having difficulty with this is that you are what I would call an eternalist. This means that you see certain aspects of the universe as existing externally to and independent of yourself and this also implies not only that you believe yourself to exist on your own side, as an independent entity, but also that "knowledge" exists independently from its own side. It is your right to believe anything you want, and I would not want to take this away from you. In the beginning I thought that you were a representative of the views of theosophy (as in all truth, this is how you present yourself, whether you will honestly acknowledge it or not), and I did not want to speak openly, as it is not my aim, and even against my moral principles, to interfere with a group of people and their belief system, but I am starting to understand that many theosophists have a view that is a little less broad or even a little more broad than your own, and that I may even qualify to be a theosophist myself, so I am now beginning to see it as maybe a duty to do my part to establish the spirit of genuine enquiry, and not be shy, as ultimately, this will benefit us all. 

In all truth, there is a kind of static quality to an eternalistic viewpoint that would contribute to the illusion that knowledge exists externally and eternally on its own side and that it can all be laid out once and for all in a form that can be given and received. The proof IS in the pudding, but after a while, the old pudding will spoil. (If you look at the pudding as life itself, life will not spoil, but to me, making pudding symbolizes making something active out of life and sharing that nourishing food with others in such a way that they can consciously, and not mechanically, partake.. It is necessary to make new pudding all the time, whether you like it or not. There are many different approaches to making pudding. Some pudding is too sweet. Some is too bitter. Some pudding is essentially nourishing, while other pudding is not. In my opinion, for a pudding to be complete, the ingredients in it need to be of the finest quality and also WELL-BALANCED, each ingredient in relationship to the others IN THE PROPER PROPORTION, but I will stop here, as maybe this analogy can only be carried so far,

What was the aim of Madame Blavatsky when she designed her material in a certain configuration? I believe it was to affect human society in a certain way, and she has done so. If she were alive today, do she think she would write the same books? That is ridiculous, as she has already done so, and the material has been released and disseminated, and, as happens with all material over time, its original baraka has to one degree or another been greatly depleted. This is not bad or good, but it a natural and a law, and unless this is taken into active consideration, this teaching will no longer continue to exert the influence it was originally designed to have.

You have spoken a lot about "verification," and this is somewhat problematic to me. I am not saying that you are necessarily doing so, but it is easy to give lip-service to this concept without understanding the nature of what verification is and how to verify in such a way that belief and the building of a house upon the false sand of ones conditioning does not enter into the picture. In order for verification to be scrupulous certain guidelines and conditions for verifying may need to be presented, not as authority, but as a helping model, so that we will not innocently deceive ourselves into further stupor. Maybe we can all work together and enquire into this subject. I will have more comments to make on your material, which is helping me to clarify my own understanding, in the future. Not necessarily only one person may be capable of helping to reshape theosophy in such a way that it can (continue to) be a powerful force and help many people. There may be more than one, but when we make a certain kind and quality of pudding, we might need to start with a kitchen that is clean, uncluttered and well organized, well lighted and spacious, with plenty of fresh air and with people who not only know how to do a certain task independently but are also able to come together as a team and do a joint project that is of SIGNIFICANT value in such a way that an end result that is very difficult, or even almost impossible to achieve, is actually accomplished. Sincerely, Wry


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]