Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00281)

In a message dated 11/21/04 1:21:22 PM, AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org writes:

>Mahatma Letters (ML 20,  
>> chronological):
>> 
>> "The Occult Science is not one in which secrets can be communicated 
>> of a sudden, by a written or even verbal communication. If so, all 
>> the "Brothers" would have to do, would be to publish a Hand-book of 
>> the art which might be taught in schools as grammar is. It is the 
>> common mistake of people that we willingly wrap ourselves and our 
>> powers in mystery — that we wish to keep our knowledge to ourselves, 
>> and of our own will refuse — "wantonly and deliberately" to 
>> communicate it. The truth is that till the neophyte attains to the 
>> condition necessary for that degree of Illumination to which, and for 
>> which, he is entitled and fitted, most if not all of the Secrets are 
>> incommunicable. The receptivity must be equal to the desire to 
>> instruct. The illumination must come from within."
>
>I fully agree with this paragraph from the Master. This phase of 
>giving Truth in paradoxical language continued till 1890. Later 
>principles were given in clear language. That is why I don't read 
>much what was written before 1890.
>
>Anand Gholap

Pardon me if I butt in.

Unfortunately, we can't be sure that the so called "clear language Truth" 
given out after 1890 (as supposedly "theosophical TRUTH") wasn't colored 
(distorted) by the inherent biases and prejudices of those later authors who professed 
to interpret the earlier, so called "paradoxical (more like *metaphorical* 
and *symbolical*) language" used prior to that time.  

Fortunately, for the really intuitive student, this earlier language 
(considering both its metaphorical meaning as well as its symbolic physical, i.e., 
typographical presentation) -- written specifically for them (using a defective 
English language that could never "clearly" explain these truths) -- appears to 
be far closer to the directly *experienced* TRUTH than any indirect, and most 
likely biased, later interpretation based on the authority of possibly 
imagined or delusional "descended Masters" created solely in the minds of the 
religiously prejudiced writers. In this, I refer specifically to AB, CWL and AAB -- 
all of whom followed the same religiously biased "party line" -- that had no 
basis in the original "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy" 
teachings given out by those same Masters, whom those writers made to contradict 
themselves after they spoke the real Truth to and through HPB (and sometimes, WQJ). 
 

It was relatively easy for such later writers to get away with these twists 
and turns after HPB died, her papers were "edited" or expunged, and WQJ was 
shoved into the background to die soon after. So, who was there around to point 
out these pseudo theosophical distortions after 1890-96?

Therefore, no amount of assertions or referrals to "channeled" (which could 
be self delusional or fabricated) *authorities* by those writers, or their 
promoters, can convince me (or any other intuitive student who can test these 
realities for themselves) that any of their writings actually constitute any 
ultimate Truth or give any veracity to their interpretations -- including their 
self-assertive conclusions that turn a purely impersonal metaphysical science 
into a messianic and hierarchically ruled religious philosophy that goes directly 
against the fundamental precepts presented directly by the original Masters, 
or as direct quotations, through their sole "messenger," HPB... Who was forced 
to use metaphors and so called "paradoxical" (or symbolic graphical) means in 
order to overcome the deficiencies of the English language she wrote in.  
Thus, all later attempts to use "plain English" must necessarily be insufficient 
to explain these metaphysical TRUTHS. Q.E.D. 

It's quite obvious (to me at least) that the metaphysics presented in the SD 
(as correctly comprehended by the directly visualized *experience* of the 
"intuitive" student, and verified by the writings of the Masters, themselves) is, 
in many cases, in direct contradiction to these later "plain [faulty] 
language" interpretations. Even the two dimensional linear diagrams they used were 
symbolically faulty and misleading.  

Remember! Pythagorus said, "The Universe geometrizes." And, this geometry, 
in relationship to the "seven fold, coadunate but not consubstantial fieldsor 
'planes' of consciousness," that are entirely *spherical* and 
*multimensional*.-- is far more important to understand through direct intuitive envisioning, 
than relying on the false, dead letter interpretation of the so called "seven 
ray" *geometry* given out (as facts or truth) in the writings of most all the 
self professed "theosophical" authors that came after HPB.

In fact, IMO, even the "paradoxical" scriptures of the ancient Brahmans and 
Buddhists, are much closer to the understanding of the true metaphysics and 
their relationship to the "Heart Doctrine" than the writings of any of these 
later pseudo theosophists. So, therefore, it behooves us to compare and think 
before making judgements about the "clarity" of any post HPB interpretations -- 
that were ostensibly based on a study (although personally biased view) of 
those original teachings by those later writers.  

Leonardo