Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00006)

Hi Dallas,

I have only one very short answer to that one. 

Which facts and thoughts are you ignoring while being so loyal to 
Blavatsky and the Mahatmas?
--
And now for a longer elaboration of where that question is coming 
from:
I found out just how this process works while looking again at the 
Bowen Notes I wrote about a few weeks ago, how there is doubt whether 
they report an actual conversation with Blavatsky. So I looked the 
notes up and reviewed what I found and came up with quite a few 
things that I had previously simply ignored - keeping aloof, because 
HPB "probably had a point". With all due respect to HPB, I don't 
think putting the products of her mind a century ago, over my alive 
mind now, is helpfull. I mean, if there were a live HPB sitting here 
in my study, it would be different, but even then I hope I would be 
honest enough to ask the questions, voice my doubts etc. What use is 
silently and demurely saying aye and amen to her words? 

Bowen notes plus footnotes found at:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/th-bowen.htm

Now whether or not HPB aproved of the Bowen Notes isn't relevant to 
the present subject. What is relevant is that ultimately I have to 
decide for myself what I consider true. I can't keep my mind on the 
leash of those who supposedly knew better than me. (even if their 
track record of cooking is very good). I've had enough experience of 
science (for instance) saying one thing for years, when my instincts 
said something else - and then finding that years later science 
changed her mind, and my opinion is suddenly science based - to know 
that to trust anything other than my own instincts (where they have 
an opinion) is folly. Though this comes with the reservation that 
continuous self-observation is necessary in order to keep track of 
self-delusion. 

The above doesn't mean, by the way, that I am claiming to have The 
Truth in the palm of my hand. I certainly don't. All it means is that 
I don't think any of us should trust any authority, H.P. Blavatsky or 
anybody else, beyond what their own instincts confirm. And where 
ethics and self-study are concerned: I agree with Dallas, Blavatsky 
and the Mahatmas have written wonderful stuff. But where things like 
Atlantis, Lemuria and the race theories are concerned, things get 
very hazy. Fortunatly that stuff is hardly going to change our lives, 
whether true or untrue or largely veiled. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "dalval14" <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> 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