Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00151)

Hello Dallas,

Since you took the initiative to change the header, there is no longer a 
need to use the one I had proposed, and I'm sure that either heading 
would satisfy Paul's request. 

Before responding to your statements below, I would like to return to 
your closing statement in your last post:

>>DTB	It demands study. No one's verbiage is the final IT. You seem to take off on words and I, on IDEAS. 
>>
I think your remark here touches upon the subject which I have been 
trying to address. When you put "IDEAS" in all caps, I take it that you 
are following the accepted exegesis for the interpretation of HPB's 
writings (i.e. SELF, HIGHER-SELF, DIVINE)--namely nouns in all caps 
represent transcendent concepts which are not wholly accessible to any, 
except one who is in a state of Buddhic consciousness. In this case, I 
would think of Plato's archetypal world of Ideas, all accessible to us 
in a state of pre-existence (Plato says), and are the ultimate (though 
distorted) source of ordinary ideas, or the thoughts we cultivate during 
our earthly existence--whether they be inspired or mundane. You may 
want to add or modify my interpretation of your meaning here, or perhaps 
to re-phrase it into HPB's words, but otherwise, I would take it that we 
are more or less on the same track. I also understand you to be 
expressing this same transcendence to other capitalized terms you have 
used, such as: THEOSOPHY and TRUTH (though I'm not sure what you are 
trying to communicate with BUDDHI-MANAS that is any different than 
Buddhi-Manas).

Given the above explanation, I would respond that, for me, my access to 
IDEAS is something I do in a discipline called meditation. Not the form 
that is taught in at least one Theosophical Organization. I don't call 
that meditation at all, but rather, a method of guided imagery. My own 
practice comes from some training I received in Los Angeles in the late 
60s, and have picked up again upon moving to Northern California through 
a retreat center here, called Spirit Rock. You may have heard of it, 
perhaps not. Their techniques are based upon the Theravada tradition of 
Buddhism, which HPB and HSO took their vows. There is also a Zendo 
nearby us, which I occasionally visit, but I'm not personally attracted 
to their techniques. Speaking from my own experience, I would just say 
that IDEAS are not expressible in worlds, and while we may be able to 
more or less hint at them with the use of words, I would prefer 
experience to discussion. 

I'm reminded of the story of Ananda who asked the Buddha a question on 
some transcendent subject, and the Buddha answered by handing him a 
lotus flower. 

In a more perverse way, I think the same point is being made in the now 
rather old joke (which I'll repeat in case you haven't heard it) about 
the Christian, Jew and Theosophist who were walking together, and came 
to a divide in the road. At the divide was a sign with an arrow 
pointing to the right, saying "Way to Heaven," and another arrow 
pointing to the left saying "way to a discussion about heaven." The 
Christian and Jew went to the right. The Theosophist, of course, 
followed the sign to the left. 

So, while I would agree that HPB's book, The Secret Doctrine, points to 
IDEAS, I would submit, that the act of reading the SD is not going to 
transcend the reader's consciousness to the realm of IDEAS (though they 
might find the experience inspiring). Nor is talking about IDEAS, nor 
attending Sunday lectures where students of Theosophy talk about their 
ideas of the IDEAS take one there.

So here in the physical world of social relationships and communication, 
we seek IDEAS by talking about ideas, and by doing this, we use language 
(or "verbiage" if you would rather. I believe that communications, when 
properly done, can also point to IDEAS, just as HPB's works do through 
written communication. Some people find their direction through certain 
classical sacred works, and as time moves on, so does language--making 
it necessary for us to communicate, to keep up with the ever evolving 
ways that people use language in order to communicate in more and more 
sophisticated ways. That is the subject I have been trying to address. 
For ideas that point to IDEAS to remain relevant, they have to be 
expressed in a way that is meaningful to the seeker. It is not a matter 
of "abandoning" as you put it in another post:

>Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Plato,Tennyson, Emerson, Longfellow, Sir Edwin Arnold, Descartes, Byron,
>Lavoisier, Bacon, Goethe, Laplace, Pythagoras, Hermes, Buddha, Lao Tse,Confucius, Krishna, Kapila, Shankaracharya, etc...
>
Though you must agree, that very few people have ever read these 
writers. While their ideas about IDEAS remain relevant, it is only 
because people continue to talk about their ideas of the great writer's 
ideas about IDEAS. And they do so through an ever evolving framework of 
language. So, if the Theosophical organizations are to continue to 
continue in their work, they will need to learn to communicate in the 
mode of today--not as we did fifty or more years ago.

Replies to yours below:



>Every individual MIND is to be enfranchised --only this has
>to be done by each one for themselves. 
>
Yes, we agree here.

>As to present day promulgation. I say there is no other way than studying
>the ORIGINALS and making THEOSOPHY a part of one's life and daily practice.
>
I take it in this case the capitalization of "ORIGINALS" is done for 
emphases. I would say that as long as one is getting the proper 
information that leads one along a spiritual path, the text doesn't 
matter. The last part of your statement is more of a matter of personal 
interpretation, depending upon the spiritual needs of the individual. 

>Of course if one has no trust in THEOSOPHY, what can be said? It either
>coheres or it does not. 
>
Right. Others may find better ways for them.

>Nethercott was researching Besant. KPJ was researching ? -- sensationalism
>? I cant fathom his reasonings (or motives).
>
Sounds like a good question to take into meditation.

>If the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY was being "protective" of her (Annie Besant),
>and Olcott and the Masters, then what were / are they afraid of ? An
>exploding myth? 
>
Yes, I think so. But they would not see it that way.

> Read the Pelletier book on Judge. It is very good.
>
An associate of mind ordered it for us when it was first announced and 
still has not received it. Interesting that you got a copy.

>SECRET DOCTRINE revealed? Read any page you choose. It is there always. At
>least to my eye and mind.
>
As can some people open the Bible at random and read a passage that will 
answer their questions and give them inspiration?

>Egypt and India	-- The "Eastern AEtheopeans (?)" came from the Malabar
>coast. As I recall both ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE make this
>clear. [ S D II 417-8, 429] 
>
Why is this important to you?

>"Revelation:" [see S D I 10, 42, 269-70, 341, (PRIMEVAL: XXX, 52,
>272-3, 356;)
>This may not exactly mean what you seem t want, specially as S D I vii says
>it is NOT a 'revelation.'
>
I don't know what you are responding to here.

> I am talking of the basic and supporting HEART
>DOCTRINE which underlies ever sentence and page. But I cannot tell you
>exactly what that is, as your intuition may be along another channel than
>mine (see the 7 great channels Or rays -- streaming from the Primeval Dhyan
>Chohans S D I 570-5)
>
If this is an answer to my question: Where does the SD openly discuss 
the Secret Doctrine, then yes, what you are saying here is what I was 
trying to point out to you in asking that question in the first place.

>Although words are traps for some I think no one can get far in dead-letter
>definitions. How else to convey this: Try the 2nd section of the VOICE I always go back
>there for inspiration, and of course the 3rd section.
>
Ah. Too bad, I think we just fell back to square one again. :-(

Best Wishes
Jerry



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]