Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00420)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR<ramadoss@g...> wrote:


> Were there not several instances of what is said in Isis 
was "apparently" 
> different from later explanation in SD. When one deals especially 
with 
> matters what psychics can see and describe, there are bound to be 
some 
> differences. Until such time that *we can for ourselves see first 
hand*, 
> there are going to be differences of perception. It also reminds me 
of the 
> blind men and the elephant. Each had a different perception and all 
are 
> correct in their limited perception.


Mr Ramadoss:

I fully agree with your view. We should aim at direct perception of 
the truth (or otherwise) of the teachings for ourselves. 
Regarding "Isis", see what Master K.H. wrote (ML 18, chronological):

"(By-the-bye you must not trust Isis literally. The book is but a 
tentative effort to divert the attention of the Spiritualists from 
their preconceptions to the true state of things. The author was made 
to hint and point out in the true direction, to say what things are 
not, not what they are. Proof reader helping, a few real mistakes 
have crept in as on page 1, chapter 1, volume 1, where divine Essence 
is made emanating from Adam instead of the reverse.)"

Perhaps the present-day generation of students is faced with a kind 
of antinomy: "Theosophy encourages the seach for Truth, but only the 
teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas are true".

Pedro