Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00360)

Dear Anand:

STUDYING AND KNOWING THEOSOPHY 

It is quite plain, if you have failed to study what (and how) THEOSOPHY was
presented to, and for us, (especially in the period between 1875 - 1891)
that you appear to be so ignorant of it. But I may be wrong and have
misunderstood you? The BASICS were carefully presented to us for study and
use during that period.

You say you think. Good. But what do you think about? What are your
ideas? What is your basis? What principles do you use? On what basis do
you presume to criticize and make wild and (to me) derogatory (if not
insulting) statements concerning the MASTERS OF WISDOM who are the TEACHERS
of THEOSOPHY ? 

I suppose you are familiar with the traditions of India, and of the great
Rishis who were (and are) the inspirers of countless generations of devotees
and chelas? Who do you think were (and are, today) the inspirers of
THEOSOPHY ?

But then, you may have neglected ISIS UNVEILED, The VOICE OF THE SILENCE,
The KEY TO THEOSOPHY and the SECRET DOCTRINE -- so my question is an unfair
one to ask you, as they were written before 1890. 

You seem to be good at "baiting" other students and attempting to belittle
the great philosophy. Why is that? What motivates you? What is so
difficult for you to understand? And why do you launch an attack that is
only partial? 

You seem to use a method that is quite different from that of Sri Krishna in
the BHAGAVAD GITA -- and I wonder about it. But then, that was written
over 5,000 years before 1890. 

Really, perhaps we ought to thank you for the interest your position
excites, even if it provides no special insights that have not already been
covered by many, far more erudite (and respectful of their Teachers) than
you appear to be. If I recall correctly, one of the greatest sins in Hindu
tradition is said for a student to "spit back in the face of his Teacher."
What teacher has ever caused you to develop this?

You say that pre-1890 writings are written in paradox. Demonstrate it if
you can.

Try as a beginning on the subjects of


1	GOD -- LAW (Karma) -- EVOLUTION
for all beings

2	STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS as in:
Jagrat, Swapna, Sushupti, Turya

3	The Immortality of the MONAD ( Atma -- Buddhi)

4	The 7 Principles of the Universe and of Man
[ see S D I 157-8, II 596 ]

5	STATES AFTER DEATH 
Kama-Loka -- Devachan -- Reincarnation

6	KARMA (or a Universal law of moral life)

7	ATMA-BODH ( Wisdom for all) 


You seem to have the ability to select a few passages that suit you, and
send them like bullets to those of us who honor the MAHATMAS and HPB, Their
Messenger.  

But you apparently do not have the ability, or good reason, to explain your
views, nor do you seem to provide a "level field" for other students to
consider both sides of your research and offerings -- that is if you can see
some "side" other than your own. What makes you think you are correct?

If those views of yours can be made clear, then many can consider them.

Most of the key literature of THEOSOPHY was written before 1890. Your
apparent and avowed ignorance is surprising. Why bother with THEOSOPHY if
you don't know it thoroughly? Are you playing with the name? Are you
deriding its ideals? Are you seeking to shake our confidence in it? 

If you have any useful answers they will be appreciated.

Best wishes, 

Dallas
 
========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Anand 
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 9:19 AM
To: theos-talk
Subject: To Pedro - Biggest Contradiction in Theosophy



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