Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00108)

OK...trying to clarify..

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> re Joe, Dallas, leadership, interpretations ...
> 
> Joe wrote: <<Verily a paradox we have here now. A movement 
> which is supposed to be creedless, and with the objects (VERY 
> loosely stated) of a) Promoting Universal Brotherhood, b) 
> encouraging study of religion, philosophy & science, c) 
> investigation of unexplained laws of nature and psychical powers 
> latent in man...and what we are faced with here...as anethema as 
> it may sound, is that there is no requirement for theosophists to 
> study "theosophy" in order to be members of any TS. <<
> 
> Yes, even speculators like me get to me members of a TS!
> 
> << The 1900 letter from KH to Besant exhorts her to make the 
> ES as creedless as possible...>>
> 
> One might wonder where one might find references to that letter?
> I was under the impression that the Mahatmas clearly enough 
> stated, in one of their letters (Daniel or Dallas might know which 
> one), that they would not be corresponding with anybody after 
> HPB's passing. Or am I mistaken?

ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST, SEPT./OCT. 1987, "SERVICE TO THAT SUPREME 
SPIRIT ALONE..."
> 
> <<and yet, if we read several of the postings put out here 
> regularly for consideration, it ends up sounding like attempts to 
> make a theosophical-based religion, complete with a set of 
> canonical literature, much like what one would expect from a
> Claire-Prophet, Bailey, or Besant-Leadbeater, instead of the open 
> and honest inquiry exhorted by HPB and the Mahatmas. >>
> 
> One might wonder which postings you're referring to?

+++++++++++++
From: <dalval14@e...> 
Date: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:57 am
Subject: RE: "exoteric/esoteric," "consequences" and whatever

LAST PARAGRAPH OF POSTING...

Astrology, if true, is no more than a rendition of a portion of
the Akasic records. It may be available if a person could be
found to use it for more than personal curiosity.
But it takes an Adept mind to detect the need for such a task,
and then, to read them at will. As far as we are concerned, it
appears to me, that much time devoted to such research may
detract from our real growth and lines of personal discipline.
That is, if we accept the request, by H P B, that we
PROMULGATE, and pass on a correct, true version of Theosophy to
others.

++++++++++++++
> 
> <<Did someone here say that we shouldn't study astrology or 
> occult sciences, or investigate nature, only mahatma's have the 
> right, or the reason to do that...where did that come from? How 
> can anyone who considers themselves a student of theosophy 
> could come up with something like that! >>
> 
> How one defines "study astrology or occult sciences" might be 
> somewhat relevant, though, on the other hand, when taking into 
> account one's karma-specific scenario with respect to one's 
> definition of such as "truly spiritual" ... ?
> 
> >>There is absolutely no precedent in the early literature to 
> support such a statement! In fact, all evidence in the ML and 
> other early literature would seem to be quite the contrary!>>
> 
> Not knowing what "early literature" is being referred to, what 
> comes to mind is that "evidence," in general, would tend to be 
> dependent (as I see it) on how one interprets it, its sources, 
> "early literature," etc., in whatever contextual sense.

EARLY LITERATURE WOULD BE DEFINED AS MAHATMA LETTERS, THEOSOPHIST 
MAGAZINE, OTHER WRITINGS FROM PERIOD TO APPX TIME OF HPB DEATH. THE 
MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT IN EARLY THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY ON SUCH 
MATTERS IS THE THREE OBJECTS OF THE TS.
> 
> <<Of course such an attitude leads to someone without practical
> experience giving out advice on things they truly know nothing
> about...it's just all theoretical flapdoodle, and it shows!!! >>
> 
> Seems that part of our collective karma involves a certain 
> emphasis or aspect in keeping with learning to, in effect, "think 
> for ourselves," IMHSO, "for better or worse," as it were. But, 
> true enough, sometimes that kind of thinking can be challenging. 
> :-/ >>
> 
> <<You can't talk about Voice of the Silence authoritatively 
> unless you have a background in Raja Yoga.>>
> 
> One might wonder how one might more specifically define "talk 
> about Voice of the Silence suthoritatively" in that context ... ?

BY AUTHORITATIVELY, IT IS SIMPLY MEANT AS "KNOWLEDGEABLY". PERHAPS 
BAD CHOICE OF WORDS. "VOICE" DEALS WITH THE STATES INVOLVED IN YOGA 
PRACTICE. IF ONE HAS NO PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE OF RAJA YOGA, HOW CAN 
SOMEONE INTELLIGENTLY COMMENT UPON IT?
> 
> << That is horribly sad, and unfortunate, because what is in the 
> "Voice" is practical in the deepest, most important ways, and the 
> dangers, likewise, are the same. THIS IS A WARNING!!!>>

BY WARNING IT IS MEANT THAT RAJA YOGA IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS 
PRACTICE AND ONE NEEDS TO HAVE A QUALIFIED TEACHER WITH PRACTICAL 
EXPERIENCE IN THE SUTRAS AND IN THE PRACTICE. OTHERWISE, THE LIKELY 
RESULT IS TO ADD TO THE ALREADY OVERFLOWING POPULATION OF CHANNELLERS 
AND SPIRITUALISTS...IF NOT MUCH WORSE.
> 
> Thanks, Joe. I'll keep your words in mind.

AS AN ADDITIONAL THOUGHT, IN BUDDHISM THE ISSUE OF "THE RELATIVE" AND 
THE "ULTIMATE" WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ADOPTION OF A TWOFOLD SYSTEM OF 
LOGIC WHERE THE BUDDHA WOULD ADDRESS ITEMS FROM AN ULTIMATE OR 
RELATIVE POINT OF VIEW, A MODE WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY ALL MAJOR 
SCHOOLS OF BUDDHISM. SOMETIMES I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT IN TRYING 
TO CONSTANTLY ADRRESS THE "ULTIMATES", THAT IS FIRST PRINCIPLES, WE 
FORGET THE EVERYDAY WORLD THAT WE'RE IN AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE 
(PSUEDO) REALITY THAT WE FACE. JUST A THOUGHT...

ALSO, CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN...INTERESTING 
ARTICLE ON HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE...

JOE
> 
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course such an attitude leads to someone without practical
> experience giving out advice on things they truly know nothing
> about...it's just all theoretical flapdoodle, and it shows!!! You
> can't talk about Voice of the Silence authoritatively unless you 
> have
> a background in Raja Yoga. That is horribly sad, and 
> unfortunate,
> because what is in the "Voice" is practical in the deepest, most
> important ways, and the dangers, likewise, are the same. THIS 
> IS A
> WARNING!!!