Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00038)

Let me add my two cents to this discussion.

Wry, You are perfectly correct in your comparison between the SD and a 
religious scripture such as the Gospel of St. John. They are certainly not 
the same teachings, nor were they written for the same purpose. But, it's 
like comparing apples to oranges. 

Please understand that the SD was not designed to be a "spiritual teaching," 
nor a yoga or religious practice, for the "common man." The Voice of the 
Silence is sufficient for that -- as is the spiritual teachings of one's 
chosen religion. Theosophy is perfectly compatible with the idea of 
theosophists being members of any religion -- since all religions have the 
same spiritual, moral and ethical basis. But, the SD is a special case (even 
as compared to HPB's other writings on both occult metaphysics as well as 
spiritual ideas). So, it is not the "Bible" of theosophy. It was written 
solely as a textbook or reference for those seeking to understand the deepest 
meanings of the metaphysical basis upon which all those religions rest. It 
is, therefore, a textbook of metaphysical science and the philosophy of 
religions -- but not a "religion" or a teaching designed to give someone a 
transcendent "feeling of spirituality." It was designed solely to expand on 
the comparative religion studies in Isis Unveiled, and to further educate 
prospective acolytes on the way toward becoming Adepts -- through its 
teaching of the fundamental truths of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis, along 
with the metaphysical basis of the psychical powers latent in man. Its 
ostensible goal was to guide those students toward the use of such powers for 
the benefit of Humanity, so as to help them, as a whole, form the Universal 
Brotherhood of Humanity, as well as help the Masters in putting human 
evolution back on the right track. So, it could never serve as a "Bible" for 
any religion. Nor is it "the aim of theosophy to establish a universal 
brotherhood." All its students were expected to do was individually form the 
"nucleus" (which means "A central or essential part around which other parts 
are gathered or grouped") -- not THE Brotherhood itself. 

Also, the reason why the SD appears as not to be an "organic whole" is only 
apparent on its surface, if you think of it as being written for "everybody" 
and every purpose. Much of it, in fact, was intentionally written in a 
disorganized manner so as to discourage "common people," still caught up in 
their materialistic world, from being able to penetrate into the deeper 
mysteries and magic it teaches -- that only those ready in this 5th round, 
5th race and 5th subrace for their 5th plane rational and 6th plane intuitive 
mental development (which is necessary before true Spiritual development). 
So it is entirely "time appropriate." That is, if one can see further than 
the end of their present lifetime, or get off the lower four planes and start 
thinking with both their rational and intuitive mind about the eternal NOW as 
being the synthesis of past, present and future. As for your take on all 
this, I too, think you just don't know what you are talking about.

So, I suggest you find out what theosophy is all about, what it teaches in 
the SD,
why it was exposed when it was, and what were the purposes of such disclosure 
-- before criticizing its presentation. along with trying to twist it from 
its real purpose, into a religion that's suits your own personal development 
in this lifetime, and distract its students with other hidden and apparently 
short term agendas (which are too obscure to make any comment about). In any 
event, that's a pretty narrow time frame or focus for a serious theosophist 
whose primary interest is (and who can also be a follower of the fundamental 
spiritual teachings of any religion or yoga) in fully developing his 
intuitive mind -- so as to arrive at "self realization" in order to become 
"better able to help and teach others." 

So, I think it would be good advice that before one tries to heal another, or 
veer him from his self chosen path that one should take heed of the rule of 
Hermes, who said, "Physician, heal thyself", or that of Jesus who said, 
"before you try to remove the cast from another's eye, see to the mote in 
your own." 

LHM


In a message dated 02/03/03 2:17:35 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi. I have just spent 20 minutes looking throughn a bunch of emails, mostly
>from this list, reading three or four, deleting some and marking the rest
>unread. Usually this takes longer. I have then gone downstairs and found
>some reprints from the Secret Doctrine, thinking to quote a section, and
>then come back up here and spent five minutes leafing through this stuff,
>but it is all the same. Any part can be used as an example. I have chapter
>two of The Secret Doctrine. It is admittedly somewhat interesting, You can
>compare this to the Gospel of John. Neither one, in my opinion, is time
>appropriate, but one is an organic whole. the other is not. Moreover, the
>common man can read the story of the gospels and not intellectually
>understand the inner meaning at all and yet come away with something that
>is whole and approaches and even touches the esoteric, as it is
>well-constructed allegory,. and even by reading it and not fully
>understanding it, he will be changed, and maybe someday, much later, he
>will understand, but The Secret Doctrine the common man will NOT read or
>understand either now or later. Do you dispute this? A good spiritual
>teaching is for everyone. It is simple. This is my understanding, though
>you may not agree.
>
>If it is the aim of theosophy to establish a universal brotherhood, people
>will need to begin to grasp the concept of limited time. Until what is
>called in the Bible "the last day," which has a meaning not only symbolic
>but also literal, all time is LIMITED, not unlimited. This means that people
>do not have forever to accomplish a given mission.The first