Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00169)

Dallas





-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins [mailto:jjhe@c...] 
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:04 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Our discussion.





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

>>DTB It demands study. No one's verbiage is the final IT. You seem to
take off on words and I, on IDEAS. 

>>



J

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. 







DTB Agreed



j

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). 





DTB

[ NO DIFFERENCE HERE] I use caps for emphasis. In this case whether in
caps or not buddhi-manas is a transcendent quality of mind joined to the
utmost moral/equity. It is the all encompassing brotherly MIND. I sometimes
have problems with words as they are not adequate - or, I fail to use them
in the best way.





J

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. 



DTB Agreed - I would say that meditation is very deep thinking on an
abstract plane where there are no special conditions or positions other than
a seeking for universal and impersonal truth. I think that PATANJALI
offers some of the best definitions. In any case it is a use and
development of our "Will." -- But you may disagree on this as there a
number of definitions for both mediation and will. I would add that our
moral intent (desire ?) gives a "tint" to the nature of meditation and the
will.



I think he uses the word "concentration" and implies also the use of the
will as a specific kind of desire of a high moral quality ( dare I say :
Buddhi-Manasic?)



There are many techniques advocated, and some work for some people and
others for others. The main point is that the individual EGO can control the
process. 







J

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. 



====================================



DTB A symbol of the entire UNIVERSE.



As in: AUM MANI PADME HUM ?



======================================



J

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. 





DTB That is a good one. I hadn't hard it.



J

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.





DTB Agreed. No rites, rituals or skimming will get anyone very far.

Study is a kind of meditation.





J

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. 





DTB Agreed.



J

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. 





DTB Understood. I would say HPB did that in her time using the methods
of scholarship and quoting "authorities" of her time. 



J

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.





DTB Those are not the only ones or the only means. Even in the time of
HPB only the "educated" (and the few among those who were interested)
retained a modicum of "classical education." Consider today the elites who
are educated in the deeper aspects (as specialists) in the sciences and the
arts. They are not the average person.



However, with universal literacy, the so-called average man has a tool to
assist in approaching the universal and basic ideas that you and I and a few
others call: THEOSOPHY . It always will depend on the individual as to
whether he makes full use of those advantages. That's why it is said that
progress is always a matter of individual's desire, inclination and will.





J

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.

>



J

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. 





DTB YES





>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.

>



J

As can some people open the Bible at random and read a passage that will 

answer their questions and give them inspiration?





DTB Not at all, I mean as a serious search, not a crutch.





>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] 

>



j Why is this important to you?





DTB Only as a matter of accuracy, and something our paleographers didn't
know.



===============================



SEE also on this SUBJECT in I U 



ISIS UNVEILED I 405, 515, 525, 567, 570-1, 576, II 435-8, 



==============================



>"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



----------------------------------



DTB A matter of meanings we give to words.



To me words are the surface of meanings. To click on meanings we have to
use the fundamental basic ideas (if we can agree on them) or we get lost
in "verbiage." 



Best always,



Dal Nov 13 2004



===================================



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