Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00546)

Jan 22 2003

Dear Wry:

I am not trying to pin you to anything. Far from it. Let me try and
explain: I "butted in" and of course pay the price for it - I do like
what you have to say. Let me try and dig myself out of the hole I am
in, with you.

For us (who are students of Theosophy), generally, Mme. Blavatsky and
her writings have been the key to that knowledge and wisdom which
seems to unify and resolve many gaps and conflicts in the realm of
information as presented popularly, as well as by our academics.

If one takes the meaning of THEOSOPHY to be "all-inclusive," then the
person through, and from whom we received that information is going to
be referred to. For me, she is H P B, and her writings. But I am not
limited by them.

The sphere of knowledge is vast -- as vast as our Earth and its
relations with the firmament. We are unique to ourselves, but may not
be so in terms of the Universe. It is apparent that this universe and
earth are regulated systems that support life on this planet, and
probably elsewhere. The ruler of the world is LAW -- and it seems to
me, we only scratch the surface of a knowledge about that.

So we can (without being specific) place UNIVERSALITY, UNITY and LAW
as primary basic facts. The last one is EVOLUTION which we all do
together.

There are (for me) three things I cannot eliminate from any
consideration:

1. I exist.

2. The Earth and the Universe exist.

3. There is a relation, meaning and purpose for our on-going
relationship.

What remains is a study of thee relationships, and I conclude that a
single life is inadequate time to finalize this. Logically I
conclude that in me, the physical man, the REAL ME is not limited by
the life-tenure of this body, but uses it for the time it works Then
in due course it reincarnates .... It has been doing this for a very
long time so we are probably in looking back seeing some residue of
our work in earlier eras.

Reincarnation seems a reasonable solution, and a good deal of evidence
seems to support this. Consciousness and unitary intelligence are
areas of important discovery.

It is also clear to me that there is a universal ethos -- a morality
which reacts to "good," and "evil." I conclude that "evil" is any
choice that contravenes universal Law. Why should humanity be excluded
from the operation of universal and impartial law ? What in us feels
free enough to choose? What, even, is the purpose of humanity in the
universe ? Why am I here, you, and where are we going ?

Theosophy posits a Spiritual Ego in man (also in the Universe as a
PRIMAL BASIS) -- as immortal as the perpetually moving atom is in
physics.

Theosophy also terms the law of retribution, operative in man's life,
a fact and names it of old -- Karma (action and reaction).

You and I, and many of us are seeking to prove that we do in fact live
under these circumstances, or, that we do not. If so, can we discover
the laws thereto.

Bickering among ourselves, as I see it, do not lead to progress, but
consideration of ideas, does.

Would we eliminate Euclid from Geometry, or Pythagoras from
mathematics? Or Einstein from "relativity?" Or Plato from philosophy?
Can we deny that the evidences of Hindu and Chinese wisdom and
philosophy are inconsequent? What unifies the trend of knowledge,
from the past to the present, and so on into the future? Are we to be
that future?

This atmosphere of study does not prevent others from using other
methods, or referring to other writers. I deliberately may seem
vague -- and give an answer, or query aimed at bringing out the gist
of a subject, without being particular, unless something of that
nature is asked for. I assume we all have equal access to basic
reference books and archives, and can refer to them and to INDEXES
until we know what THEOSOPHY has to say on almost any subject. I
happen to use THEOSOPHY as a touchstone -- well tested and well used
in my case. I have used it with and against almost every aspect of
knowledge and found that the theosophical view is more logical and
useful. I therefore tend to trust it. H P B says in one place that
if it is faulty in any respect it all falls to the ground. If you
look at S D I 272-3 you will find a description of its antiquity and
the systems of research used (and in use now) by its scholars.

We all are, as I think, searchers after truth.

Names and labels need not bother us if they help in pointing to a
trust-worthy source where information flows forth and which can be
checked.

I object to having a claim or an authority flung at me as though that
settles the question. I desire to think about it and see how it
integrates with the rest of my knowledge and the facts available.
After all, this is THEOSOPHY we are studying and using as a touchstone
to anything offered.

H P B is for us the starting point -- so we refer frequently to what
she has written if we think it says better that we can, a fact. I
always assume that a student will check her and verify anything she
says. Yes, I do use her as my "authority" and perhaps unconsciously,
I expect others to be as enthusiastic as I am, in discovering how
knowledge and wisdom really is very ancient. To her I extend my
deepest respect and gratitude as it is she who opened the doors to me.
But as for the value of teachings, that I test, and am independent
about. By the way I have yet to find any serous error in her writings
(there are some typos and proof readers may have left in some) or the
"system" she has offered.

If any one wants to know what THEOSOPHY teaches, then they have to put
themselves in the position to study it, until they know exactly what
it teaches, and where. Then, one can contrast that more accurately
with what others offer, or ones own string of learning, academic, or
not.

I have been following your trend and writings, and while it is
bracing, it also seems to me to be a conflict of opinions.
Fundamentals will settle those. I don't mean yours or mine, but a
combination, by comparison. Now how would you set your "fundamentals"
against those of Theosophy ? Similar, dissimilar ? What ?

H P B was a universalist (as I hope I am) and trying to label her a
Buddhist of some school or not is unimportant. That is past stuff.
This is the present, and we are considering all trails and threads of
learning impartially. As to who she was, and what she is, read the
MAHATMA LETTERS, if you wish to discover what the Masters of Wisdom
thought of her. She claimed to be but their "messenger."

What did she teach ? Read the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, ISIS UNVEILED , and
The SECRET DOCTRINE. Do they make sense to you?

What is the present position in regard to things she taught ? Now
that is again a very interesting area but also demands a thorough
knowledge of what THEOSOPHY teaches.

I would not say that Krishnamurti is the result of her efforts at
all -- they never met as she died before he was born. I value K. as a
very honest and descent man. Gurdjieff -- I have read but he did not
impress me.

Pre-history is valuable to show a trend a past to knowledge and its
recording. Theosophy is not new or isolated but is at the end of an
age-old string.

Read and study the meaning of the GAYATRI verse if you wish to share
in some of the meaning of absolute LIGHT and TRUTH that others seem to
have seen
======================
GAYATRI
Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all
proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden
by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole
duty on our journey to thy sacred seat." -- Gayatri

Unveil is the cry of the man who is determined to know the truth and
who perceives that something hides it from him. It is hidden by his
own Karmic effects. It is directed to that on which the Universe is
built...no other than the Self which is in every man.

There is a true Sun of which the visible is a reflection, and in that
is spiritual energy and help. It is interior to each of us -- our
SPIRITUAL CENTER, the imperishable, eternal Monad. Atma-Buddhi.


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



Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: wry [mailto:wry1111@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:57 PM
To:
Subject:: Essential Unity-- BUDHISM - MAHAYANA -- BODHISM (Or
Wisdomism)

Hi.

I do not perceive the function or purpose of what you have written,
and
would appreciate it if you could tell me.

In any case, I have never said she was a Mahayana Buddhist, as her
work has a distinctly non-Buddhist flavor, as she speaks again and
again of a first or primal cause, and this is contrary to the
teachings of Mahayana Buddhism.


DTB HOW CAN IT BE CONTRARY ?


It is (some) theosophists who are saying her teaching was Buddhist and
maybe even Mahayana Buddhist. Sometimes things are not so cut and
dried, which is what I am beginning to realize, and this is a lesson
for me. The truth of the matter is that she was what she was.

I personally do not want people to get the wrong idea about what
Mahayana Buddhism is or isn't, but I am not even sure anymore that
this matters that much. I think I was "identified" with it. In any
case, it is interesting and perhaps valuable to enquire into what is
and is not the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism, and maybe someone will
learn something from this, maybe even me.

You refer to her writings too much. Some people have suggested that
this is not really what theosophy is about or how it should be
approached. The material you put out frequently seems (to me) to be
not really pertinent, whereas when one other person, Daniel, puts out
Blavatsky quotes and the quotes of others, he is able to make simple
points and his meanings are clear as day.

He has already put out evidence to demonstrate that she understood, to
a degree, the concept of dependent origination, and was inspired by
this.

If she was able to generate what is called the greater Bodhicitta, or
unconventional loving kindness, and was teaching the doctrine of
dependent origination, then maybe she was a Mahayana Buddhist. but
even if she was just beginning to grasp the concept of dependent
origination and was still sort of between two stools, as being still
attached to the idea of a primal cause, this is so human.

Maybe a great wave of compassion touched her from the east and
generated her to do something that benefited many people. The message
to me from Nick Weeks on January 15, in which he responded to my dew
message (sorry, I got confused in my earlier message today, about who
it was) touched me very much. It was so beautiful.

But it does not really matter exactly what she was or was not. That is
looking at things backwards, in my opinion, and drains a potential
learning opportunity of joyful vitality and of its active force. She
was no
authority, nor am I, nor are you, yet you treat her as such... It is
only valuable, if one is a theosophist (according to what I am hearing
from many on here) if one uses this as an opportunity to bring about a
universal brotherhood.

As far as "clues to these events of pre-history," why would you want
to have them? Honestly, to me, this makes no sense. I am putting this
in mild language and very kindly, though my words may seem harsh.
Everything we are today carries with it all the history of humanity we
will ever need to know.
This is my opinion. The approach you expound is a form of clinging. IF
you even get to the soft white light (but not the clear light) this
way, you may end up stuck, in a state of limbo, holding onto it like a
zombie.

I have not read everything she has written, but I believe she had
mixed motives, which is human. One of these was surely to bring
certain teachings to the west in a form which westerners could
assimilate them. From what I have seen, I believe this to have been
her primary motive, and a noble one.

IF Krishnamurti is considered to have been a result of her efforts,
however much of a mish-mash and conflicted situation he seemed to have
emerged from, then she did something truly amazing, which I would call
"greater doing." I have spent thirty-three years in gratitude for
having the opportunity of reading the books of this great human being
and of hearing him speak. Some
on here, who are not intimately familiar with his ideas, do not yet
fully understand the significance of this human being and the way he
affected humanity.

I also believe Madame Blavatsky's writing influenced another
extraordinary individual, Gurdjieff, to a greater degree than most
people realize, and again, some may not understand the powerful effect
Gurdjieff's teachings have had upon twentieth century humanity.

(Some) people in the theosophy movement have demonstrated an interest
in Mahayana Buddhism, which has not been brought about by anything I
have said or done in the few months I have been on this list. In the
very beginning, I was critical, because of my own ignorance, when I
should have been happy. I am glad to see people at theosophical
conferences speaking on the subject of Buddhism and identifying
Buddhism with theosophy.

Speaking for myself, and using my own discrimination, I believe this
is NOT necessarily the best time on earth for anyone who wants to
establish a universal brotherhood to identify himself as a member of
any religion, be it Buddhism or anything else.

It IS the time for enquiry to flower and for people to both develop
CONSCIENCE and to share with each other any kind of ideas that will
lead to less ignorance. The kind and quality of idea that will do so
is that which will not lead to further clinging, but to a release of
material that is inappropriately clumped or configured.

Certain kinds and qualities of ideas will do this. Others will not. If
people use their own simple words to enquire, I believe this is much
more helpful than referring back to the writings of anyone else, even
if these words are the words of Jesus or Buddha or even Krishnamurti
(whom I would personally place in the same category), which in my
opinion are much greater than the words of Madame Blavatsky, however
great (if even great) or meaningful her words may have
been. Again, it seems contrary to what I would consider to be the true
spirit of theosophy to keep referring to anyone as an authority. If
people take one simple passage of Madame Blavatsky's writing and
enquire into it, that might be a different story, but to keep
referring back to her in the way you do seems counterproductive and,
as I have previously suggested, is probably turning young people away
from becoming involved in theosophy.


Sincerely, Wry