Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00317)

Sunday, June 29, 2003

Dear Friend,

I have looked at the quotations (also familiar to me) you have
provided from the MAHATMA LETTERS


">> (1) An adept - the highest as the lowest - is one only during
the
exercise of his occult powers.>> [ Barker, MAHATMA LETTERS , p.
180]

and

>> When the inner man rests the adept becomes an ordinary man,
limited to his physical senses and the functions of his physical
brain. Habit sharpens the intuition of the latter, yet is unable
to
make them supersensuous. The inner adept is ever ready, ever on
the
alert, and that suffices for our purposes. At moments of rest
then,
his faculties are at rest also. >> [ Barker, MAHATMA LETTERS ,
p. 180]

and

>>Couple this with the unpleasant fact that we are forbidden to
use
one particle of our powers in connexion with the Eclectics >>
[ Barker, MAHATMA LETTERS , p. 181]

>From letter 24b (old order) or 85b chronological.
Copied from the CD-ROM."

Your conclusions read:

"If that is so, then they are likely to be at fault, in the case
of details. And unfortunately, what we consider important, or
mere detail, is likely to be different from what they considered
important or detail.

In short: the material provided by Mahatmas and Blavatsky is in
the same position as every other piece of food put before us by a
good cook: edible and useful until proven to be unhealthy or
spoilt. And where different spiritual teachers agree - they are
more likely to have gotten it right. So that I would say - we
should sample different spiritual teachings in order to be able
to judge correctly."

My view is that

First: I am not competent to decide, using by brain-mind, what H
P B sand Mahatmas write and teach is incorrect.

I would consider that presumptuous in view of the fact that all I
have so far studied is coherent and dovetails into a whole.
There are many statements that I have not understood. I set
those aside for continual future consideration. In most cases I
have found later corroboration I do not conclude swiftly that
"They" are wrong or "inaccurately written." My knowledge is far
less comprehensive than Theirs. So I am willing to study further
to find out if there is something I had missed.

Second: I can exercise my free will to check for logic,
potential truth, reasonableness and "common sense" all statements
made, but that does not entitle me to decide on their accuracy,
nor to tell others that I think I have found errors, nor further,
try to CHANGE those teachings to suit my petty conclusions.

Third: I am unwilling to say that they are WRONG in any detail,
especially as the Master writes that he had thoroughly reviewed,
corrected and annotated The SECRET DOCTRINE. That stands for
something.

Theosophy may not please all. At best, as their pupils, we can
but bow and say we will try to learn. If, however we consider we
are not their pupils, then, I suppose that appears to free us to
say anything, whether fully reasoned or not.

However I, being very cautious in all such matter, start with
asking questions and not stating opinions.

But I also recognize others' right and freedom to adopt any
attitude they please.

Personally, I have too much respect for these great Personages,
and would be glad it they accepted me as their lowest pupil.

Best wishes,

Dallas