Re: Theos-World RE: RE: Cayce's relevance to Theosophy/theosophy
Nov 10, 2004 06:14 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
4:30 a.m.? I hope you are getting enough sleep.
I think we are getting closer to a breakthrough in our dialogue here,
and hope you hang in with me for a while. I think this issue about how
Theosophy is communicated to the public is vital to the future of the
TM. If we are unable to communicate with this post-modern generation,
then what use are we to the future of the TM?
JHE Nethercott, the author of a two volume biography of Besant
>visited Adyar in the course of his research and was not permitted to see
>any records at all.
>DTB I met Dr. Nethercott in Bombay and we talked several times. He also
>met Mr. Wadia and conversed with him. I have a copy of his book on A B. I
>found him objective and clear cut in search of the truth about things.
I'm not questioning his objectivity or even his scholarship here. My
point is that he was not permitted access to the Adyar Archives in order
to do research on Besant. Besant had a service which collected every
newspaper and magazine article ever published on or about her. The
collection is unique and important for his research. But he was not
granted permission to see them.
>JHE One can communicate Theosophical ideas in a
>theological package or as an opportunity to launch into a meaningful
>inquiry concerning the nature of existence. An example of a theological
>approach is to begin with the premise that HPB was the messenger of the
>Masters, who in turn are relatively all-knowing and practically
>I submit that this kind of theologizing, if accepted by a new
>student, severally compromises their freedom to openly and fairly
>consider, accept or reject HPB's ideas. It is once again, circular
>thinking. If one begins with the premise that the Masters have the
>TRUTH, because then everything they write must be true. Below are
>responses to some of your statements, that I hope will bring more
>clarity to this situation.
>DTB I would not call this "theological." It is either well reasoned or
>it is nonsense. If nonsense in any part, then forget about it. If it is
>coherent, keep in touch and advance with caution.
Why would you not call this theological? If we begin with the premise
that God exists and the Bible is His word, then everything in the Bible
must be true. Is that not theological thinking? If we begin with the
premise that the Masters have the Truth, and HPB is their messenger,
then what HPB wrote must be the truth. How is the first example
different from the second?
>>>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
>>JHE Dallas, "read the book" is not an answer to my question.
>DTB It was not meant as a "cop-out." You ought to be able to evaluate the
>SECRET DOCTRINE and ISIS UNVEILED as well as anyone. Does it sound like a
>construct or an invention?
If I thought there was nothing to it, I would not have stayed with it
for forty years. I would neither characterize it as a construct nor an
invention. I would use the word profound. However, you still have not
answered my question: Where in the Secret Doctrine is the secret
doctrine openly elaborated upon, or as you say, "revealed." Can you
give an example?
>>That depends upon what you mean by ethics and metaphysics.
>>DTB I mean those that are common to all.
>Ethical and metaphysical teachings vary from culture to culture--there
>is nothing universal about them. I recall in one of HPB's articles
>acknowledging that fact and writing that a universal ethic is something
>that humanity will need to achieve. Regarding metaphysics, she also
>added that the issue of vicarious atonement, a metaphysical construct
>which divides the world, will also need to be resolved before any true
>human fraternity can be possible.
>DTB In my esteem the BASICS do not.
>Details and phrasing do -- agreed. Nut fundamentally. If we call it all
>"brotherhood" we will find that it is practiced by all immortals who know
>themselves to be so.
>See as an example S D II 167
I wish that were so. But I will have to go with HPB on that one--that a
universal ethic will have to be worked out by humanity before there can
be a brotherhood of humanity. Perhaps that is why the words "to form a
nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity" was used in the first
Object. That word "nucleus" has an important defining function in that
>JHE Which proves my point. All of the religions you mention above are
>Indo-European--including the so-called "Egyptian Mysteries," which
>emerged from a Greco-Egyptian syncretism.
>DTB The S D says that it comes from India. Direct. Later as the
>Mysteries failed in Egypt it migrated to Greece.
It? Are you saying that the Egyptian religion came from India? If so,
we are reading the SD very differently. My reading is that HPB is
writing about a cycle (not a religion), a kind of renaissance, the
blossoms in one culture, finally dies out and re-appears in another.
>BTW, when HPB writes of
>Jesus in Isis, she distinguishes between an historical, a Biblical, and
>a Theological Jesus. They are quite different, and to overlay one upon
>the other is a real mistake. In my experience, most misreading of
>HPB's writings, I have observed to have come from people who fail to
>distinguish which level HPB is writing (e.g. historically, textually,
>theologically; or literally, metaphorically; or even failing to
>distinguish when she is making statements of her own or quoting someone
>DTB Take the life work of anyone -- say, Pythagoras, Plato, :Paracelsus,
>St. Germain, H P B -- and the "overlays" are similar -- I don't feel any
>separation is justified. It makes no difference if only analysed.
>Synthesis reveals the REALM PERSON WITHIN. What does BUDDHI-MANAS say?
I suspect to are responding to a very different point than the one I was
making above. I'm talking about reading skills one must develop in
order to track with HPB's writings. Separation is indeed justified.
For example, reading metaphor as literal will lead to a lot of silly
conclusions. HPB herself warned against this.
The point that I think your are making: that certain great writers in
history i.e. Plato, Paracelsus etc. expressed similar ideas, is not
related to mine, nor do I disagree with it--as far as it goes.
>>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?
>JHE It can also be neither true nor untrue, and/ or it can be both true and
>untrue. Let us avoid smothering the life out of Theosophy by forcing it
>into modernistic binds of true and false, authoritative and not
>authoritative, good and bad et. These are only a few out of many
>options we may employ to broaden our understanding. Quantum physics have
>shown that universe is much greater than the limits of binary thinking.
>DTB Agreed, but what does SYNTHESIS say? You can't have true grandeur
>without verity in all aspects.
Yes, SYNTHESIS, which must transcend this binary thinking of "true or
>>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.
>JHE Superficial? That wasn't Yeats' point for telling the story. Yeats was
>very negatively impressed by the rampant fanaticism of many of the
>people who surrounded HPB. This woman who became obsessed by this idea
>of a "divine spark" is only one of many examples he gave. Indeed,
>behind HPB's little put-down is a very serious point, because, how can
>the divine spark come through one who has become fanatically obsessed?
>DTB The only point of resolution lies between HIGHER MANAS and LOWER
>MANAS -- the immortal INDIVIDUAL and the temporary personal mind of the
>-presently incarnated man or woman. This is the read difference as I see
Yes, which Yeats' would argue, cannot be achieved through fanaticism.
>DTB I give up here, as it seems our opinions diverge.
>I say that THEOSOPHY is synonymous with TRUTH -- you say not so -- so where
>does it get us ?
Where did I say "not so."
>DTB I know THEOSOPHY is not to be preached or swallowed wholesale.
>DTB It demands study. No one's verbiage is the final IT. You seem to take off
>on words and I, on IDEAS.
Words represent ideas, and our minds are organized to express ideas
linguistically. Each, therefore, becomes the means of expression for
the other. Within this apparent duality lies the key to that SYNTHESIS
you mentioned earlier.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application