Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00068)

Hi Wry,

I think Dallas put things quite nicely. Still I have a few things to 
add as well, writing from a slightly different position. 
> 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 suceeeds in 
doing is
> turning many of these gullibles INTO stone. 
Have you read the references I gave you at all? Or have just not 
understood them? In my opinion what she calls jnana yoga is the 
precise opposite of what you describe above: it does not mean setting 
a doctrine before you and seeing it as absolute. It means slowly, 
letting the fog of misunderstanding pass - seeing all thought-images 
as temporary etc. In short: if people set themselves in stone, it is 
because they are incapable of understanding what she wrote, not 
because they are following the spirit of her writings. See:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/th-bowen.htm she says there 
among other things (She being HPB):
>> She talked a good deal about the "Fundamental Principle." She 
says: If one imagines that one is going to get a satisfactory picture 
of the constitution of the Universe from the S.D. one will get only 
confusion from its study. It is not meant to give any such final 
verdict on existence, but to LEAD TOWARDS THE TRUTH. She repeated 
this latter expression many times. 
It is worse than useless going to those whom we imagine to be 
advanced students (she said) and asking them to give us 
an "interpretation" of the S.D. They cannot do it. If they try, all 
they give are cut and dried exoteric renderings which do not remotely 
resemble the Truth. To accept such interpretation means anchoring 
ourselves to fixed ideas, whereas Truth lies beyond any ideas we can 
formulate or express. Exoteric interpretations are all very well, and 
she does not condemn them so long as they are taken as pointers for 
beginners, and are not accepted by them as anything more. Many 
persons who are in, or who will in the future be in the T.S. are of 
course potentially incapable of any advance beyond the range of a 
common exoteric conception. But there are, and will be others, and 
for them she sets out the following and true way of approach to the 
S.D. 

Come to the S.D. (she says) without any hope of getting the final 
Truth of existence from it, or with any idea other than seeing how 
far it may lead TOWARDS the Truth. >>

and on jnana yoga she wrote the following:

>> This mode of thinking (she says) is what the Indians call Jnana 
Yoga. As one progresses in Jnana Yoga one finds conceptions arising 
which though one is conscious of them, one cannot express nor yet 
formulate into any sort of mental picture. As time goes on these 
conceptions will form into mental pictures. This is a time to be on 
guard and refuse to be deluded with the idea that the new found and 
wonderful picture must represent reality. It does not. As one works 
on one finds the once admired picture growing dull and unsatisfying, 
and finally fading out or being thrown away. This is another danger 
point, because for the moment one is left in a void without any 
conception to support one, and one may be tempted to revive the cast-
off picture for want of a better to cling to. The true student will, 
however, work on unconcerned, and presently further formless gleams 
come, which again in time give rise to a larger and more beautiful 
picture than the last. But the learner will now know that no picture 
will ever represent the Truth. This last splendid picture will grow 
dull and fade like the others. And so the process goes on, until at 
last the mind and its pictures are transcended and the learner enters 
and dwells in the World of NO FORM, but of which all forms are 
narrowed reflections. 

The True Student of The Secret Doctrine is a Jnana Yogi, and this 
Path of Yoga is the True Path for the Western student. It is to 
provide him with sign posts on that Path that the Secret Doctrine has 
been written. >> 

> 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 alot 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.
Well, so far I have not read a single thing that was what you call 
valuable. And by saying you have something valuable to add, you are 
saying you are an authority. Which is not a problem for me: we all 
are authorities on at least our own paths. As for me claiming to be 
an authority - well, I have read the Secret Doctrine completely, 
twice. I have also read most of the collected writings. This does not 
mean I claim to fully understand Blavatsky (which claim would mean I 
would set myself up as an authority), but I have studied her work 
enough to know that IMO what you say about it is absolute drivel. 
> WRY: I have left many messages claiming this and I believe I very 
recently
> left another one. Spititual 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.
I think we actually agree on this already. No need to ponder. 
> >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.) 
Agreed: you started it though by saying I set myself up as an 
authority. 
> 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
Well, admittedly (getting nasty here, appologize) I can imagine it 
being difficult to remember what you say, as you seem quite capable 
of defending two opposite ideas. (or at least, ideas that seem 
opposite to me). Now if I remember correctly (my memory isn't all 
that good either) you were critizizing Blavatsky's work as being not 
of one mind (my words): the philosophy wasn't clear. The work was 
chaotic. I agree that it isn't written in a clear didactical manner, 
starting from A, following logically to B etc. That is, in The Key to 
Theosophy and The Voice of the Silence she IS didactical and 
organized and clear (though still never easy). But in both The Secret 
Doctrine and Isis Unveiled her writing is complex, multi-dimensional, 
confusing to the majority of people. Most people get lost in the 
details. Which is sort of what I thought you were saying. But then 
again, maybe it wasn't. 

Katinka