Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00283)

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 fields 
or 

'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