Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00018)

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Dear Katinka:

It is not a question of being loyal to the personalities we know
of as H PB (or think we know something of) as the MAHATMAS.

It is a question of getting as the SOURCE and BASIS of our
philosophy, and finding out if it is TRUE.

I take nothing on "faith."

I grant everyone the same freedom as myself in thinking and
seeking.

I also decry and scoff at no one except when error is plain, and
than I scoff (if ever) at the error and never as the person.

This is because I can sense the same universal, impersonal and
deific PRESENCE in every one. The Personality can err, but not
the MONAD.

Try that on Bowen's NOTES. Their value in innate in spite of all
the physical and scholarly questioning. Also it diverts an
inquirer from that which might help him or her.

To me the whole affair is an utter waste of time and energy. It
is also evidence of a continuous attempt to undermine the values
of theosophical teachings. And I thin we can all see that.

What then do we doubt? Ourselves? H P B ? Masters ? Do we
place our entire trust in our own power to think? Have we NEVER
MADE AY ERRORS IN JUDGMENT? Are we always so very ultimately and
universally SURE ?

I matters of Theosophical truths the century of our time has very
little value (to me). I am not impressed, my approach has always
been IS IT TRUE AND VERIFIABLE ?

What H P B might say or do at present would not to my way of mind
and study be much different from what she has always said and
done from 1875 up to 1891. There is there an undeviating line of
coherence. I trust and use that as a touch-stone. Just as you
rust your mind and decisions.

So do we agree or so we agree to disagree? And if so on what
grounds?

Best wishes,

as always,

Dallas

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





-----Original Message-----
From: Katinka Hesselink [mailto:mail@katinkahesselink.net]
Sent:	Tuesday, July 01, 2003 5:40 AM
To:	theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Theos-World Re: wisdom : Theory and Practice

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




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/