Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00291)

Leonardo wrote, in part: <<... 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).>>

But seems to me that AB, CWL, AAB and 
their like might also be seen as having 
contributed different perspectives that, 
in turn, (depending on how those 
perspectives are interpreted), might be 
seen as having had a role as helpful 
contrasts by which the "original 
teachings" (re Esoteric/Wisdom 
Tradition) might be seen as even more 
convincing and valuable, comparatively 
speaking. Not that I'm saying that one 
can short-cut one's individual 
efforts/intepretations---which 
efforts/interpretations might, in some 
cases, (apparently ...), lead one to 
follow AB, CWL, AAB and their like, in 
whatever sense ...

I apologize for what might seem like an 
all too circular form of speculating. 
What can I say ... ^:-/ ...

<<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?>>

A. Cleather, for one, and ...

<<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.>>

You might be seen to have a point there, 
in a sense ...

<<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>>

On the topic of "original teachings" as 
they might be seen in terms of 
"Synthesis of Science, Religion and 
Philosophy," here's a quote from Ken 
Wilbur's QUANTUM QUESTIONS:

<<And as for the attempt to support a 
particular religious worldview by 
interpretations from modern physics? 
Einsten, representing the majority of 
these physicists, called the whole 
attempt "reprehensible." Schrodinger 
actually called it "sinister," and 
explained: "Physics has nothing to do 
with it. Physics takes its start from 
everyday experience, which it continues 
by more subtle means. It remains akin 
to it, does not transcend it 
generically, it cannnot enter into 
another realm ... because [religion's] 
true domain is far beyond anything in 
reach of scientific explanation." And 
Eddington was decisive: "I do not 
suggest that the new physics 'proves 
religion' or indeed gives any positive 
grounds for religious faith. For my own 
part I am wholly opposed to any such 
attempt.">>

So one might wonder about the sense in 
which there might be a "synthesis" of 
science, religion and philosophy ... I'm 
tending to speculate along the lines 
that that kind of "synthesis" would 
necessarily tend to get kind of 
mystical, and so could only be 
"exoterized," or modelled or 
Theosophized, at best (ie, while the 
Reality underlying such modeling can 
only be directly experienced, is beyond 
all attmpts to describe).

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS I tending to speculate that Leon and 
Leonardo might be one and the same 
person, more or less, but I can't be 
absolutely sure, (ie, being the kind of 
speculative guy I am), so ... Leonardo, 
if you run into Leon, could you ask him 
how he's doing these days ...