Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00297)

In a message dated 11/22/04 3:52:46 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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 ...

Valuable... Helpful... Yes, since much of it stays true to and rests on the 
esoteric teachings. But the beef is with the distortions that are made which 
attempt to justify turning theosophy into an organized religion. Personifying 
the "Rays" as a ruling hierarchy is one such. 

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

Whatever you've already said. :-)

><<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 ...

Yes. But, I meant someone with true Adept connections with the Masters who 
would have some authority (along with reasonable argument) to effectively deny 
the conclusions of these writers.

><<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 ...

Glad it makes 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 judgments 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? 
>Einstein, 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 cannot 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).

That synthesis is what the Secret Doctrine is all about... Since the 
"science" spoken of, in its "synthesis of science, religion and philosophy," is a 
merger of metaphysical science with physical science -- which, incidentally, since 
Einstein made that merger a living reality (and the new M-theory takes it 
even deeper by unifying his mutually incompatible relativity and quantum 
theories) -- the old "mystical" (even up to AAB who was stuck in it) aspects of 
theosophy no longer exist. Vide, Leon Maurer's ABC theory -- that pulls all those 
scientific theories together and links them to what was the "ancient 
metaphysical mysteries" -- which have now been turned into a simple and understandable 
metaphysical/physical scientific philosophy (that can be intuitively 
"visualized," if not explained in words) ** ... And, whose only "religion" is the yoga 
practice[s] (ref: Patanjali, VOS, etc.) that assists the serious "searcher for T
RUTH" in merging one's individual self with the Universal Self, and thus 
achieving "self realization" or enlightenment. 

Leonardo

** That "visualization" comes about naturally when one reaches (in practice) 
the third chapter of Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms. From a scientific POV, 
that's when the bridge between the right and left brain is built and crossed so 
that the consciousness can experience the multidimensional "ideation's" in the 
intuitive Buddhi mind, and thus create a new language of symbolic "wordings" 
that can be "seen" but not "heard" (like my mom always said her kids should be 
:-). Thus all Maya becomes dissolved in self awareness (just like a baby:-). 
LM 

>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 ...

He's doing well... Speculating on the pure scientific aspects of theosophy... 
But sometimes leaves the religious, yogic, or mystical occult stuff for me to 
rave about. :-)