Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00066)

Wednesday, February 05, 2003


Dear Wry and Katinka:


May I break in here and offer a few thoughts ?

Let me offer the following as a student for over 60 years of Mme.
Blavatsky's writings. I make no claim for myself, but am quite
prepared to deal with most inquiries about THEOSOPHY such as she
exposed it to us to learn from. When I am "out of my depth," I say
so.

I think you may mistake the purpose of Mme. Blavatsky's writings.

In all they make a report on History.

They write about the ideals, the laws of universal life, and of that
which relates to "SPIRIT" as the highest level we can imagine and
think of.

She is not what I would call a "spiritual writer." The word
"spiritual" has been abused, and needs careful definition in all cases
of use. In her case, I would say she exposes a knowledge that is
inspiring of itself. The only claim she made was that she was a
"messenger" from those whom she designated as the MASTERS OF WISDOM.
ISIS UNVEILED for instance reveals age old and earth-wide patters of
learning and records anomalous events in history which deserve further
investigation.

In The SECRET DOCTRINE she discusses the Laws of the Universe and the
interaction of Intelligence and Consciousness in the program of
Evolution, considered as an ancient and universe-wide phenomena. She
says we are all involved in this and have been so for an incredible
antiquity in the past, (as spiritual beings) and will continue to be
involved into the foreseeable future.

Now, can we set ourselves to studying that ? Perhaps we might all
learn from that if we do it systematically.

We all enter any study with certain personal pre-conceived ideas. If
we allow those to bias our study, we will find the result to be biased
in the same way. We have to pursue all studies impersonally if we
desire to secure accurate and true results.

I have found that those teachings and statements bridge the gaps left
in the narration of the past by the destruction of ancient texts and
records which invaders systematically destroyed in several areas
(about 2000 to 5000 years ago) -- around Egypt, Mesopotamia and the
Middle East, and India. This resulted in almost a total isolation of
the modern West from its antecedents. Grecian knowledge was saved by a
few scholars who withdrew from the West taking their precious
manuscripts with them into the seclusion and fastnesses of the Middle
East for a while. The Florentine Renaissance, as an example, was the
result of some of those being returned to Europe where they were
cherished, studied, discussed and reproduced. The patterns are clear
to a student of the history of ideas and philosophy. Another of such
impacts was recoded around the time of H P B's writing when the
treasures of Oriental wisdom were made widely available by scholars
like Max Mueller, and others. It was also a time when knowledge was
ever more freeing itself of the shackles of priestly dogmatism in
Europe. Science was being set free to examine Nature and her many
areas of life as she was in reality.

These writings of H P B state the nature of the patterns and events
that mark the workings of the Universe, and these include, in time,
the most ancient beginnings of our Universe, our solar system, and in
particular, they focus on the evolution of consciousness, purpose of
mankind and of life on earth.

They also trace in detail the evolution of mankind from three
different areas that are conjoined in each of us. It is as though H P
B was, as a scientist, were to write impartially about the laws of
nature which he had researched.-- surely there is no objection to
that? For example see ( S D I 181-2). There you will find that
three great currents of intelligence are described in their
commingling:

1.	SPIRITUAL --generally unknown to our academics, but suspected by
mystics and prophets, who may contact it and try to describe it to us
in terms we might understand -- as Laws of life and moral verities
among humans in their ideal relations.

2.	INTELLECTUAL as the development of great and universal plans and in
those, the participation of mankind as embodied MINDS, and the
translation of animal instincts and urges into well regulated orders
of thought.

3.	MATERIAL -- as the refinement of perceptive capacities in the gross
instruments of physical matter (our bodies and its senses) that we
live in and know of. And then, the hints taken up in the last 3 to
400 years by Science (independent of the bonds of dogmatic religion)
as to the nature of physical matter, its chemistry, geology, physics,
biology, and the ways in which astronomy, engineering and mathematics
can be used to improve our instruments of perception.

I see no special rigidity in any of the theosophical expositions.
There is an open invitation to test the results of the past and to
engage in the continuing research of present experience. We are asked
to investigate these and other great patterns of evolutionary
progress. It is a great combined search for TRUTH as it is already
established and operating. In fact we all owe our lives to the
support that Nature offers us all -- food, water, clothing, shelter,
education, etc.

I do see that it is plain from the records of mankind in many areas of
research, that there have been parallel studies made since antiquity
that can be put together, and the sense of purpose and progress can be
drawn by anyone who compares them and learns from them. Our present
knowledge and science is then seen to be an extension of past efforts
to uncover the reason for the operations of NATURE as a whole. It is
not parochial or biased when it confines itself to making a record of
it actual observations. It does become opinionated when it seeks to
devise reasons in the supposed past for present conditions.

Nature existed long before we did, and will, most probably, continue
way after we die. I also detect that Nature operates under law, and
see no great objection to that, nor do I sense limitations that
oppress me. I can well imagine that if Nature were not accurate, fair,
just and universally impartial my own existence would be a joke, and
purposeless. How about you ? Are you not free to think and to
choose?

I see no need to enter any meditative or contemplative "state," from
which there is "no return" -- and I would add: that is NOT
"spirituality," or any other kind of sound recommendation. Where in H
P B's writings did you encounter this?

I would say, if you wish to question H PB and her writings, do so.

But do it with references in hand, like a good student does.

Then we may both examine the same words and seek their meaning
together.

General statements, and personal opinions usually have no weight.

Where do you find an "eternalistic" state described?

Are you referring to the reports that many mystics have made of
experiencing "God?" Or something like that? Because, if so, this is
known as a world-wide phenomena and quite frequent.

Usually it is the experiencers who invariably return to ordinary life
consciousness, and then they speak of their mysterious experiences and
encounters. They also sound and speak as though they were overwhelmed
with confusion -- and have met an (whether psychic, mystical, or
spiritual) event that they are not quite equipped to handle rationally
as a memory.

H P B cannot be isolated in this regard -- or do you have some
references ?

As far as I have been able to find, she never recommended "samadhi,"
nor did she ever recommend anything but straightforward thinking about
anything offered.

She did describe Samadhi in the same manner as the Hindus, Buddhists,
Tibetans, Chinese, Japanese, and other systems of philosophy and
religion described some of the practices used by some of their
aspirants for spiritual knowledge.

But H P B did not recommend them. In fact she sought to deter most of
those who might apply for information about practical disciplines.

The reason for this is that a student (the Real Man within) has to
first purify himself of any emotional, psychical, or personal
antagonistic feelings. The emotional or desire nature has to be
rendered inoperative, before the true spiritual nature can be made to
work by the Real Man within -- it has to be unhampered and
undisturbed. But this is also taught in Hinduism and Buddhism. It is
hinted at in narratives concerning "Initiation" in old Egypt. As a
concept, it is not in favor in the West where the "personality"
(consisting largely of quite unregulated emotional urges) is
considered by most to be of extreme importance.

If there is a logic to the Universe, she recommended familiarizing
ones' self with that, and then testing one's understanding. And one
of the ways of doing this was to study the information made
available, and, consult with others.

I have no idea how much you have read or studied of THEOSOPHY in H P
B's writings-- not of others' views about theosophy -- but that is
entirely up to you; and to me, you sound confused.

One of the things she recommended is that no one make any special
claims for themselves. I seem to think you do, and wonder why. They
may be important to you, but they need to be expressed more clearly
into be understood by others.

The proof of the "pudding" is in the eating. A statement is either
true inherently or there is a degree of error in expressing it. And
you alone can determine that.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: wry
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:47 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Wry on Blavatsky: Part Four

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: katinka>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: Wry on Blavatsky: Part Three


> Hi Wry,
>
> There is record of Blavatsky actually teaching people face to face,
> orally, etc. But she also wrote books. It seems to me you are
blaming
> her for writing books.

WRY:

Blaming her for writing books?

No, She did an interesting job, but there is something WRONG with her
books, in my opinion.

One thing among others is that she leads people to believe that a
certain kind and quality of knowledge is written in stone, and what
she actually succeeds in doing is turning many of these gullibles INTO
stone.

Other spiritual writers do not do this. You will not end up "stopped,"
in a state of fixed contemplation
which is NOT the end of the psychological self and in which state you
do not really have the knowledge to consciously DO anything
significant. If you do not understand what I mean by "stopped," I
cannot explain it any further.

Someone who reads this will understand what I am talking about.

It is an ETERNALISTIC state which is the end result. Maybe some others
are more able to get into this state then you and this is why you
don't understand. If so, you are lucky (I guess), though it might not
be so bad to get into this spot IF a person knew how to get out of it
and WHAT TO DO NEXT, but they will not, as there is no real knowledge
given about how to do this. In my opinion, a good spiritual teaching
will not have this result. But maybe I am wrong. .

> > WRY: You are missing the point entirely. Obviously these were
> designed for
> > two different purposes. What you do not seem to understand is that
> #1: all
> > of us start out as the common man and #2: obviously you do not,
> cannot, and
> > will not believe this, but, though knowledge of a certain kind can
> be
> > transmitted in the way she attempts to, other knowledge cannot be
> given in
> > this way. It can only be SHOWN. It needs to enter the functioning
> of the
> > receiver in a certain balanced configuration that has something to
> do with
> > subtleties in timing. When this is not done, and it is NOT, people
> can get
> > stuck (MESMERIZED) on one aspect and this is what has happened.
> We can get
> > past it, but you do not want to look at this. You cannot. You are
> stuck in a
> > mode of contemplation that is not GENERATIVE. That is the way this
> teaching
> > is set up. I am really sorry about this, but I have had nothing to
> do with
> > it. This is not to say that there is no value in her teaching and
> that no
> > good can come out of it.
> How on earth can you judge where his mind is at???? Are you claiming
> to be an advanced clairvoyant?

WRY: By his works you can know him. Everything he has written points
in this
direction. To me it is very clear, but maybe I am wrong. A stabelized
state
of contemplation leads automatically to a state of being MESMERIZED,
as in
this state, the oscillation frequencies cannot be appropriately and
continuously adjusted. If anyone on this list wants to send me money,
I will
set up a special account with pay pal. I could use a thousand dollars
right
now to further my Work. (Ha ha).


> >
> > The stuff you have said about Mahayana Buddhism, which I just now
> read,
> > having somehow missed it, is way off the mark. The aim of
Mahayana
> > Buddhism is NOT the kind of static contemplation you are talking
> about as a
> > realization of the zero point or whatever. You do not understand.
I
> have
> > experienced the deep contemplation of this zero point as have
> countless
> > others. Go past. Go past. Theosophy is NOT the middle way, nor is
> the middle
> > way the contemplation of a zero point. There is something else.
> You don't yet know theosophy - so don't judge it.

WRY: It is easy to know a whole great big lot about theosophy just by
being
on several theosophy lists and by reading different books. It might be
a
good to stick to ideas and not worry about defending the reputation of
theosophy. You are putting yourself up as an authority. What if I were
to
say to you that YOU don't know a lot about theosophy or that you don't
know a
lot about me? Just stick to ideas. I have given a VALUABLE KEY IDEA
THAT
RELATES TO THE SUBJECT OF ETERNALISM. People are reading this. Some
will
understand. I am not the enemy of theosophy. I am its very good
FRIEND. I
have also given OTHER VALUABLE MATERIAL. Do not look a gift horse in
the
mouth.

> > You will not be able to help other human beings until you
> understand the
> > secrets of certain interactions that can occur between the
physical
> body and
> > the outside world. As above, so below. It is not about
> contemplation. This
> > is not the secret of what being fully alive is about. The middle
> way is
> > about the establishment of Sangha or spiritual community.
> Classically, this
> > term refers to the community which establishes and maintains a
> religion, but
> > Sangha is also a symbol for something else. Unfortunately, the
> inner-meaning
> > can probably not be understood or transmitted without the
> participation in
> > some kind of Sangha or other. When I speak about establishing a
> certain kind
> > of community, I am not speaking about establishing a religion. A
> certain
> > atmosphere needs to be created and maintained by group
> participation, in
> > which every member of the group works for the good of himself,
> every other
> > member, and the group as a whole. Until this happens, the inner
> meaning of
> > Sangha cannot be communicated. More about this later.
> This is what H.P. Blavatsky tried to create, I think, but she did
not
> succeed - indeed. She was the first to admit that, I think (though
> perhaps it would be fairer to say: she quit her body, which given
her
> track record of miraculous healing was sort of a way of saying: this
> isn't working well enough, I give up.) But then, nobody is able to
> create a sanga on their own. The people around her weren't ready -
> so, does that disqualify her as a teacher?

WRY: I believe she did try to create sangha and it must have been
extraordinary to know her. In any case, she did a lot. You may not be
able
to make a connection between her and Krishnamurti, but to me it is
very
clear. I believe he was the fruitation of her work, which was major.
This is
a compliment to her. In any case, she is not what I am looking for in
a
teacher, as, for one thing, she is dead.


> > >
> > > 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

WRY: A further comment on this. I believe she made a noble attempt,
but did
not succeed, as she got fixated on a state of samadhi-like
contemplation and
did not go beyond. All major religions are about going beyond this,
and set
up in such a way that the knowledge is in there (admittedly perhaps
only for
a few to find) about how to do this. Then again, the fact the she
could so
easily, by her writings, bring many people to experience such a state
of
contemplation, to varying degrees, is not be be discounted and is
really
quite extraordinary. I believe what I have said so far has had the
effect
that I am seeming to discount this the POTENTIAL VALUE of this, as I
have
focused on criticism of this aspect, not on its inherent potential if
the
spell can be broken. Maybe what she did was necessary.

> >
> > WRY: I will read The Voice of Silence, but no matter, as you will
> not
> > understand it this way. The teaching is always oral. You cannot
get
> it from
> > a book. Certain books can give the tools to decipher, but they are
> always
> > written for the common man, as the man who does not understand
> certain
> > material, no matter how intellectually sophisticated or even kind
> hearted,
> > is always common if he is ignorant, which he is, if he does not
> understand
> > the material.
> You don't think there is a difference between people in their
ability
> to understand certain things?


WRY: I have left many messages claiming this and I believe I very
recently
left another one. Spiritual teachings need to be designed for people
of many
different levels. Some people are more able and ready to receive
certain
material, but we are all the common man if there are only flickers of
awareness that do not extend into a plane. This is one of the secrets
of
esoteric work, the ordinary little field flower blooming out of the
mud. If
you ponder this for a while, maybe what I am trying to say will come
to you.

>You yourself have claimed to be the
> only one capable of understanding both theosophy and Krishnamurti

WRY: I don't believe I ever claimed this about either. It can be
perhaps
WRONGLY CONSTRUED that I have implied something to this effect about
theosophy, but about Krishanurti, never. Be cool.


> (and I suppose Tibetan Buddhism) well enough to do something
special,

WRY: You are just reacting, as I see it, and handling material in very
broad
sets. (I do it too sometimes). About Tibetan Buddhism I have said that
I am
not even a Mayahana Buddhist but am ASPIRING to enter the mahayana
path and
about to do so (which, admittedly, would make me ususual, as it would
mean I
am able to generate the greater boddhichitta, but this has not
happened
yet.)

> get some special kind of insight -

WRY: It is not about insight. It is about designing and making.

> which indicates that there are at
> least three levels in your mind: the rest of us, you, your master.

WRY: It would have to be this way, but it is to simplistic. Anyone who
can
teach me something or open me to something I have not previously seen
is my
teacher at the moment. My special gift has always been being able to
be
little at the right moment. Because of this I have always been
accessible to
great teachers, as I am always in the right frame of mind. It is about
learning not about teachers. Many extraordinary learning opportunities
have
always been miraculously available to me because of this frame of
mind.
This is one of my secrets. Another is that I always keep my "wolf"
intact in
a teaching situation where I must consciously take the role of a
sheep. This
is what a great teacher is looking for. There is no real transference
of a
certain kind of data without it. I hope you folks realize that I am no
authority and that anything I say could be wrong. This is why it would
be
greatly valuable for a simple verification model to agreed upon and
practiced when people are away from this list and going about their
daily
lives.

> What I suppose you can't conceive of is that HPB's work wasn't meant
> for you - either because you are not ready, or because, like
> Krishnamurti, you are already beyond it.

WRY: Her teaching is not static. ( It, as anything, is to be used
consciously and designed with.) This is what you seem to be missing. I
do
not believe that refering to what you subjectively conceive of as
being her
"work", as ia base, is what being a theosophist is about. I have
chosen
this SPOT, theos-talk, because, in my estimation, it is IMPORTANT for
me to
be here right now, and this discision is not merely self-serving.
There may
be a possibility here for a certain kind of greater doing.

>As for the rest of humanity,
> I don't think you are spiritually ready to be able to judge about
> that.
> > >It

WRY: "I" do not think "you" are spiritually able to judge whether I am
or
not. (See, this is how children talk.) It is all a matter of
discrimination. The cream will always rise to the top. If anyone tries
to
keep it down, this garve error is, what is called in the New
Testament,
putting Lucifer over Jesus Christ, the one sin that is unforgivable.
The
reason I am using so much Christian terminology on this list, by the
way, is
not because I am a Christian, though, in a certain way I am, but
because
this is a tradition that most of the people on this list have probably
been
raised in, or at least exposed to, so, when I use this terminology,
you are
most likely to understand. People do not seem to get this. They go off
on a
tangent about the evils of Christianity.


> > > 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


WRY: I will comment on this later.


> >
> > WRY: I have this book and will refer to it next, if I get the
time.
> Well, you will only be convinced of Blavatsky's inability to express
> her thoughts well. It is even more chaotic than The Secret Doctrine.
> If you want something written from one clear perspective, with one
> message, a logical build up etc. Turn to The Key to Theosophy or The
> Voice of the Silence, or any of her online articles. Isis and the SD
> are indeed weird, unstraightforward. The Secret Doctrine is the
well-
> organized one of the two. I think there was a good reason for that,
> you don't, but the basic fact is quite simply correct.

WRY: I do not recall saying anything of the kind. What do you mean by
"the
basic fact is quite simply correct"? What basic fact? You lose me
here.
Please expound. Wry
>
> Katinka Hesselink
>
>