[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Theos-World RE: RE: Cayce's relevance to Theosophy/theosophy

Nov 08, 2004 06:08 AM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck

Nov 7 2004

Dear friend Jerry:

As usual, many thanks.

I sometimes think we are saying the same things in a slightly different

I think that the Mahatmas (and HPB) exist and certainly are not "dead," nor
are they to be traced in India -- believe me, in the many years I was there
I kept my ears and eyes open.

They have a right to their privacy. (see notes below) 

It is nonsense (after paying attention in MAHATMA LETTERS and LETTERS FROM
THE MASTERS OF WISDOM, and H P B SPEAKS, etc... ) to try to identify them as
KPJ has. I say it CANNOT BE DONE.

I told him so, straight out, and challenged him to substantiate his claims
-- that was about 7 years ago -- he has not answered me. 

I see a parallel here, like the Hodgson Report did. But unless someone will
go to India and do the necessary proving and leg-work, the nonsense will
prevail here in the "West." -- and I cannot bear to see any attempt to
smirch the Great Personages to whom humanity's and my Honor is due. I am too
old and unwell to do it myself, but I know it can be done. 

Best wishes,


Do skim through the notes below.

Jerry -- If you think I quote too much then consider all that can be
culled from a 70 year study of THEOSOPHY -- it (THEOSOPHY ) is a real
gold-mine and well worth the thorough study and as in my case an attempt to
find it "wrong." I have yet to find something totally inexplicable. 

I have tried to read and study everything that was written so far on
THEOSOPHY -- but it grows and grows. I wonder what Devachan will be like? 

"Hagiography" is -- in whose esteem ? Easy to say -- but who does the
proving? No one will ever satisfy all the rest. 

So, one shows the "Path" so far followed.  


-----Original Message-----

From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: Cayce's relevance to Theosophy/theosophy


Hello Dallas,

Thank you for your views, though based upon what you offer below, I am 
not convinced that you do understand my concerns.  

Instead of addressing my concerns, your replies seem to reinforce them
instead. My responses to yours below ought to elaborate upon what I mean:  

DTB	I will try to do better -- see below.

Thanks Jerry this is most interesting. Excuse me if I am roughly frank to


W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

>In my view THEOSOPHY is not simply a religion to be presented and rubbed
in. Which is why I object when well meaning students present and rub 
Theosophy in.

>It is essentially HISTORY.


I would say that its teachings are essentially (or at least presented 
as) an elaborate and evolving philosophical system designed to bring 
one to the realization of Self, but if you were to elaborate upon what 
you mean by "HISTORY" we may still be in agreement. Theosophy is defined 
in many ways, but seems to ultimately remain an abstraction like: "The 
Good", "Truth", "The Path" etc.  

>Apparently the book titled the SECRET DOCTRINE has as one of its functions
the revealing of those "secret" doctrines that hitherto have ben restricted
to the area of learning kept secret and sacred in the past in all religions.
It underlies them all because it is basic to all.

While the SD points to the Secret Doctrine, I have never seen anywhere 
in the SD where the Secret Doctrine is openly elaborated upon, or as you 
say, "revealed.". Can you give an example?

DTB	Well, Read The Book and read ISIS UNVEILED 

>Additionally, I think, it is intended to waken the mind of those readers
>are ready to consider it, as it offers a series of philosophical and
>points, as well as a great deal of information for review.

Yes, as I wrote earlier-- a springboard for further inquiry.  

>I believe inherent in that Book, and in the rest of the authentic writings
>by HPB and the Masters that we have, is information concerning the link
>between metaphysics and ethics -- and explains, for instance : The
BHAGAVAD GITA, and the DHAMMAPADA, and the "Sermon on the Mount."
That depends upon what you mean by ethics and metaphysics.

DTB	I mean those that are common to all.

>Religion (as we know it and see it largely practised) is generated when
>people begin to "believe authorities they choose" (priests and priesthoods)
>without adequate examination, study or understanding. This usually leads
>thoughtlessness, and eventually to prejudice and fanaticism, all divisive
>instead of creating a community of interest, dialog and mutual respect.

An interesting definition, since you are defining the term by the 
behavior of some of its adherents. Since, I see the same behavior 
commonly exhibited among Theosophists, I would further suggests that 
your definition of religion will also have to apply to Theosophy--which 
is one of the points I was initially trying to get across.   

DTB	I agree, there are no exceptions. there is a difference between
IDEALS and the personal acts of "adherents."

>Theosophy is essentially an expression of the Laws of brotherhood and of
>infinite cooperation in action. It is based on a universal set of virtues
>to which all who think independently can subscribe unhesitatingly. It
>isolates, stigmatizes and attacks no one. It lets the evidence of
>universal virtue stand forward as the only basis for all to re-discover for
>themselves and endeavour to practise. 

Note that the definition you gave for religion is in terms of the 
behavior of some of its followers, where the definition you give here 
for Theosophy begins as a label for certain philosophical notions ( i.e. 
"Laws of brotherhood", "universal set of virtues") then takes on 
anthropomorphic characteristics: (i.e. [Theosophy] isolates, 
stigmatizes and attacks no one...). The latter part of your definition 
reminds me of Giordano Bruno's definition of "Truth" which he 
metamorphoses into a woman. This is great for poetry and religious 
rhetoric, but a very unfair way to compare religion and Theosophy.   

DTB	HPB said that THEOSOPHY was all three [SCIENCE RELIGION and
PHILOSOPHY] I agree with her.

>Every Great Teacher, Reformer, or Prophet to which a religion has been
>ascribed as its founder, will be found to offer as ideals the same general
>verities and enjoin their practice.

So we are told--and as long as one sticks with Indo-European religions, 
it works--more or less. Once one begins to look more closely at 
non-indo-European religions, this idea becomes increasingly problematic.  

DTB Trace them back from Christianity to, in succession: Judaism, Greek
and Egyptian Mysteries, Assyrian and Chaldean and Zoroastrian Wisdom,
Hinduism and Brahmanism -- and the Buddhist reform thereof.

ISIS UNVEILED says that Jesus studied under Buddhist monks, who had
established a vihara on the shores of the Dead sea. 

At the Council of 'Constantinople in 326 AD the link to Buddhism was severed
by the Romish church. Apparently the Eastern Orthodox retained some of that

>The SECRET DOCTRINE offers (Vol 1, pp. >272-3) a survey of the efforts made
for millennia by The Single Lodge of >Wise Adepts to keep wisdom, and its
necessary derived ethics, available for >anyone who wanted to find it, in
the world

So we are told.

>For those who may have considered THEOSOPHY (as presented by HPB and the
Masters) to be the latest rallying point, the verities are now written, and
>offered, supported by historical evidence and logical philosophical points.

As are the "verities" of any religion of the book. 

>These, the latter, are a series of essential points, few in number, but
>in explanation, made concerning the recurring origin, nature and
>functioning of the Universe (and that includes us). By these, I mean the
>"THREE FUNDAMENTALS" as found in the SECRET DOCTRINE Vol. I, pp 14 -19,
and then explained at length in that book as well as in articles written by
HPB, and others. Of course, you may or may not agree with me on this.

I agree with you that the SD narrative is essentially an elaboration 
upon the "THREE FUNDAMENTALS". Understanding of these three 
propositions are necessary in order to follow the thread of logic that 
ties together HPB's narrative. However, to put them on a level 
comparable to that given by Christians to the Credo recited at every 
Mass, is IMO, going too far.  

DTB	I wouldn't do that, as I believe only that which I can prove to
How many who verbalize the CREDO understand and can prove it? [This is why I
use the phrase "student of THEOSOPHY" -- since no one except the Masters,
or HPB can claim to the real THEOSOPHISTS.]

>Further, I am deeply interested in the way the history of those ideas can
>found traced in the many sources still available to us, derived from
>antiquity -- as myth, lore, literature, fable, history, scientific data,
>ancient monuments, traces of religions, sciences and philosophies, etc.

As am I.

>Are we on the road to TRUTH? Are we practising "Brotherhood?" I would say
that the more universal and >impersonal we are, the surer we will be in that

Agreed if that practice is a personal one. On the other hand, preaching 
of the "TRUTH" of Theosophy defeats the whole intent.  

DTB	How? It is either true or untrue. Which?

>It is said that the process of universal evolution, which give all
>of life in NATURE an equal opportunity to progress, start from
>"universality" and descend into those many "particulars" we know of. All
>have an equal base, rooted in SPIRIT -- purity and truth -- and the 7-fold
>concept of that evolutionary process illustrates that [ S D I 157; II

It is so said.

>I am of the opinion that there are Wise Men, Avatars, Rishis, Mahatmas,
>Adepts, etc..., and that they have acquired their wisdom through great
>personal effort and self-discipline in the past.
So we are told.

> And in THEOSOPHY it is said
>that those never "died" but continue, very much alive, as "teachers" and
>"Elder Brothers" working continually for humanity. This idea has inspired
So we are told.

>I have felt further inspired by the concept that in essence, within me,
>there is a "spark" of the One Spirit, and Buddhi-wisdom, surrounds it.
>provides me a "bridge" to understanding the nature and the work of beings
>such as HPB and the Masters of Wisdom.

This reminds me of a story that W.B. Yeats told concerning an open 
discussion meeting he attended at HPB's. He wrote that there was a 
woman present who was so taken by this idea of a divine spark within her 
that during the course of the evening she repeated it again and again at 
every opportunity. Finally HPB spoke up and said that: "My dear, what 
you say is true, but if you keep repeating it, that spark will go out."

DTB	Excellent comment -- as it was purely superficial.

>They have not used their acquired wisdom to isolate themselves, or to seek
>host of mindless converts, and lead them to a mental desolation, or a
>selfish area of personal enjoyment -- at the expense of the rest of

Not their intent perhaps, but in many cases, their unintended outcome.  

>As I said, their "names" and "residences" are unimportant. But to make
>important as "personalities," and give them a limited presence, deflects
>time anyone might better spend on research for verity and truth. I object
>to anything that diminishes their work and presence. 

Like the portraits of M and KH, which, as an Indian member of our group 
characterized as looking like "a couple of white men." ?

DTB	I don't agree to that. In the Punjab and N. India there are men and
women as fair as any.

>Nor can they be made dependent on the expressions colored by the popular
>languages of the moment (or its dialects, and "levels of education") -- and
>there are many others than English which ought to be considered -- as the
>THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT and THEOSOPHY are worldwide movements. 


DTB	Yes so HPB says in her times 3 centers far distant from each
other. And certainly THEOSOPHICAL literature has been translated far and

>Now whether this may be characterized as globular, linear, or circular,
>personal, individual or general thinking or, "whatever," has little meaning
>for me. The main point is: IS IT COMPLETE? Is everyone free to discover,
>test and use it? 

I would say, circular. Which is my initial point. Treating Theosophy 
as an endless elaboration upon certain notions in order to prove certain 
axioms is just another theology. A truly universal approach to Truth is 
one that does not endlessly feed upon itself, but constantly broadens 
its self by the progressive discovery of new truths which brings about a 
broadening and ever evolving understanding of ourselves and the universe 
in which we live.  

DTB	NATURE and the UNIVERSE pre-exist us and our present superficial
searches. We are enable to live thanks to the sacrifice of innumerable
monadic entities and also due to the well regulated laws of NATURE that are
universal and prevalent.

>The next point is: How do we, students all, view the PROFESSORS (I mean
the Masters of Wisdom in this, our "University of Life") and the
>of truth and law? Do we recognize and understand their sacrifice?

That understanding would requires an inquiry that includes and is 
collaborated by information which lies outside of the Theosophical texts.

DTB	Of course. But then THEOSOPHY includes everything, does it not?
What does it exclude?   

>I perceive that underlying the "eye doctrine" lies a "heart doctrine."

So we are told.

> That is what I seek and try to understand. And in doing this I present
my ideas, >questions and discoveries in the area of logic and philosophy, to
others -- as I am in search of confirmation -- and without assuming any
"authority" at

Except, of course, the authority of the Masters and their messenger, 
which you endlessly quote in order to illustrate what you believe. Can 
you find confirmation without reference to the Masters or to HPB? That 
is the difference between a circular and a progressive inquiry.

DTB	I though that free thought was a matter of self-evidence and common
sense ? Everything is available for that -- no restrictions.

If someone else says or expresses it better, let that be used -- as HPB and
Masters do -- let me quote:

"We, of Tibet and China, know not what you mean by the word
[plagiarism]. I do, but this is no reason, perhaps, why I should accept your
literary laws. Any writer has the privilege of taking out whole sentences
from the dictionary of Pai -- Wouen -- Yen -- Fu the greatest in the world,
full of quotations from every known writer, and containing all the phrases
ever used -- and to frame them to express his thought... But you may find,
perchance throughout my letters twenty detached sentences which may have
been already used in books or MSS. When you write upon some subject you
surround yourself with books of references etc. : when we write upon
something the Western opinion about which is unknown to us, we surround
ourselves with hundreds of paras: upon this particular topic from dozens of
different works -- impressed upon the Akasa. What wonder then, that...even
myself -- should use occasionally a whole sentence already existent applying
it only to another -- our own idea? I have told you of this before and it is
no fault of mine if your friends and enemies will not remain satisfied with
the explanation." M L 420

>Certain things connected with the personality of a "great leader" have to
>explained every now and again, even in among a group of students, or in a
>Society whose effort is as much as possible to avoid the discussion of

Explained? or, explained away?

DTB	Can you be more explicit?

>Sometimes they are disagreeable, especially when, as in the present
>instance, some other persons have to be brought in. And when the great
>leader is H.P. Blavatsky, and the question of her Teachers, a great number
>of principles, as to certain laws of the inner and divine nature in every
>human being are found to cluster around her and Their names. 

Yes. A real problem which needs to be solved by going outside of the 
Master's letters and HPB's writings if one is to get a balanced 

DTB	No prohibition there of course.

>She, as their "representative," is the one who brought to us, from those
>wiser brothers of the human family, a consistent philosophy of the solar
>system, and also in herself, illustrated and practically demonstrated
>through her control, the existence of the supersensuous world, and of the
>potentials or, powers of the inner, the divine, and astral man. 

As every devoted Theosophist is expected to believe.

DTB	No one is expected to "believe" anything. At least that is the way
I see it. I would say: Think, search, keep alert, and discover truth
wherever it may be.  
But no one will secure a KNOWLEDGE of what THEOSOPHY teaches without study
and verification. 

>Hence any theory or assertion touching on Their relations - which to us are
>unseen -- and between her and the Masters she spoke for, opens up for
>discussion some occult laws or principles. 

Occult laws or principles of which are beyond the personal experience of 
your presumed discussors.  

the depth added to the SECRET DOCTRINE explanations there. 

>Lets consider an item in the history of the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. 
>It relates to the question settled in the SECRET DOCTRINE by the Masters as
to the relations of Mars and Mercury to our Earth. The whole philosophy
>hangs upon it. The disagreement came about because Mr. Sinnett held that
>view of one of the letters from the Master received in India -- through the
>hand of H.P.B. -- was the correct view, whereas she said it was not. Then
>claimed she had been "deserted by the Masters." This pernicious theory and
>others like it were brought forward to show she was wrong, did not have the
>words from the Masters, and that Mr. Sinnett's narrow and materialistic
>views of the Master's statement was the correct ones. He kept rigidly to
>position, and she asked the Master for further explanation. When this was
>received by her and shown to Mr. Sinnett he denied its authenticity, and
>then the theory that she was deserted by the Masters was republished by

However, Sinnett claimed (and evidently believed) that he also got 
confirmation concerning this Mars/Mercury controversy from the same 
masters through communications from them that continued beyond 1885. 

DTB	I have looked through the TRANSACTIONS OF THE LONDON LODGE in which
this has been done.

I did not find any of the depth there that is displayed in MAHATMA LETTERS
as a "for instance" or in the SECRET DOCTRINE .

I think Sinnett went astray with psychic attempts whish he was warned

> He seemed to forget that she was the channel and he was not.

He was told that she was sometimes a channel for them, and sometimes 
taken over by "black magicians." Also, we must not forget that 
Sinnett's book, Esoteric Buddhism was the first organized exposition to 
the public of those notions which we call Theosophy: i.e. Globs, rounds, 
Root and sub-races, reincarnation, devachan, kama loka, eighth sphere etc.  

DTB	I am well aware of this and have researched it all. Would you like a
copy of this research?

" adept may be compared to that one key which contains all the keys in
the great harmony of nature. He has the synthesis of all keys in his
thoughts, whereas the ordinary man has the same key as a basis, but only
acts and thinks on one or a few changes of this great key, producing in his
brain only a few chords out of the whole great possible harmony...the brain
of the chela is attuned by training to the brain of the Master. His
vibrations synchronize with those of the the chela's brain is
abnormal...the adept sees all the colors in every color and yet does not
confuse them together...the highest adepts [ have raised their vibrations so
as to have them the same as those of nature as a whole ]...He can produce a
sound which will alter a color. It is the sound which produces the color,
and not the other or opposite. By correlating the vibrations of a sound in
the proper way a new color is made...on the astral plane every sound always
produces a color...these are invisible because not yet correlated by the
human brain so as to become visible on the earth plane....His astral senses
may see the true color, but the physical eye has its own vibrations, and
these, being on the outer plane, overcome the others for the time, and the
astral man is compelled to report to the brain that it saw correctly. For
in each case the outer stimulus is sent to the inner man, who then is
forced, as it were, to accept the message and to confirm it for the time so
far as it goes. But there are cases where the inner man is able to even
then overcome the outer defect and to make the brain see the difference...."
WQJ ARTICLES, Vol. I, p. 423-426.

>Although wide publicity was not given to the charge then, it was fully
>discussed by the many visitors to both camps, and its effect remains to
>day among those who of late have turned in private against H.P.B. Among
>themselves they explain away very easily, and in public they oppose those
>who adhere firmly to her memory, her honor, and the truth of her statements
>about the Masters and their communications to her. 
Because of what they were told.

DTB	No, in my opinion those facts prove themselves. In THEOSOPHY why
should anyone "believe" anything? 

>They think that by dragging her down to the mediocre level on which they
>stand they may pretend to understand her, and look wise as they tell when
>she was and when she was not obsessed. 
An ad homnium argument.

DTB	And so ? Is it right or wrong? Is anyone of us at her LEVEL ? Can
anyone claim to be personally at the MASTER'S level?

I think these are important to consider:


"Through all time the wise men have lived apart from the mass. [ That the
chief body of these wise ones should be under stood to dwell beyond the
fastnesses of the Himalayas...p. 70 ] And even when some temporary purpose
or object induces one of them to come into the midst of human life, his
seclusion and safety is preserved as completely as ever... they are only
known as mystics by those who have the power to recognize; the power given
by the conquering of self. Otherwise how could they exist, even for an
hour, in such a mental and psychic atmosphere as is created by the confusion
and disorder of a city ? Unless protected and made safe their own growth
would be interfered with, their work injured. And the neophyte may meet an
adept in the flesh, may live in the same house with him, and yet be unable
to recognize him, and unable to make his own voice heard by him... No voice
penetrates to his inner hearing till it has become a divine voice, a voice
which gives no utterance to the cries of self... Until a man has become, in
heart and spirit a disciple, he has no existence for those who are teachers
of disciples. And he becomes this by one method only--the surrender of his
personal humanity." L ON PATH, p. 74-5

"If, for generations we have "shut out the world from the Knowledge of our
Knowledge," it is on account of its absolute unfitness; and if,
notwithstanding proofs given, it still refuses yielding to evidence, then
will we at the End of this cycle retire into solitude and our kingdom of
silence once more...We have offered to exhume the primeval strata of man's
being, his basic nature, and lay bare the wonderful complications or his
inner Self...and demonstrate it scientifically...It is our mission to plunge
and bring the pearls of Truth to the surface...For countless generations
hath the adept builded a fane of imperishable rocks, a giant's Tower of
Infinite Thought, wherein the Titan dwelt, and will yet, if need be, dwell
alone, emerging from it but at the end of every cycle, to invite the elect
of mankind to co-operate with him and help in his turn enlighten
superstitious man. And we will go on in that periodical work of ours; we
will not allow ourselves to be baffled in our philanthropic attempts until
that day when the foundations of a new continent of thought are so firmly
built that no amount of opposition and ignorant malice guided by the
Brethren of the Shadow will be found to prevail."	M L p. 50-1

The only hope I have secured lies in the explanation of the 7 principles in
Man and NATURE ( S D I 157-8; II 596 )  

>This effort will, of course, be unsuccessful; and some will think the
>need not be brought forward. There are many reasons why it should be
>discussed and left no longer as a secret poison: because it leads to a
>negation of brotherhood; to an upholding of ingratitude, one of the
>crimes; and, if believed, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the
>great philosophy broadly outlined by the Masters through H.P.B.
Especially if argued and everyone decides to come to the wrong 
conclusions. Right? ;-)

DTB	How and why ought we to try to change other's ideas? They have to
do the work themselves -- if they want to.

>It strikes me forcefully that if critics and detractors cannot successfully
>attack the philosophy of THEOSOPHY, then they can muddy the waters by
>besmirching the reputation of its original and prime promulgators :
>HPB, Judge, etc. An effort ought to be made by those who know the history
>(I mean the sequence of events and documents) to clear their reputations
>once and for all. All who can ought to participate in that. 

Yes, but not with another hagiography. We have too many of those 
already which only serve to make Theosophy look all the more foolish to 
the rest of the world.  

DTB	That troubles me least of all. If history depends on documents, at
least we have each of us, the right as duty to interpret them for ourselves
and not accept what we are told to "believe." Faithful copies of ORIGINALS
are needed in all cases. 

It is fatal to go on faith or belief. Proof is needed in all cases and that
takes time and effort. 

>Well for the moment I will have to stop, but I do maintain my points as
>already stated.
>What is it that we know for sure from within?" What is an "intuition?"
>I hope this may be of use in our conversation.

Yes. Your comments are of great use, as I hope you will see above.  

BTW, please understand that concerning the Mars/Mercury controversy, I was 
playing devil's advocate with you in order to get across the difficulty 
in "setting the record straight."   

DTB	I thought so --- got it.

Both sides have internally consistent arguments, and upon the grounds that
the controversy is debated, it always comes down to who is to be believed.
I'm sure that HPB would nod in agreement when I say that it is more
important that we 
rely on our own authority--not hers, or the Masters.  

Remember Fern, who failed because of his own fanaticism?  

[DTB	See in Manila Edn. MAHATMA LETTERS on Fern pp 267, 278, 231-32 -34
-36, 288, -- seems it was worse than "fanaticism" ]

Best wishes,

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application