Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01553)

In a message dated 04/23/05 12:05:06 PM, GodLovesEveryone.org@gmail.com 
writes: 

(Whoever wrote)
> >No physical writing can be said to be timeless. That is nonsense Leon.
> >When we consider, that the audience, language, the understanding of words
> >and so on are changing,
> >I think the reader will understand my point.
> >Am I the only one here at Theos-talk who can see this?
>
>I certainly understand you. Wasn't it one of the earliest versions of 

>the Bible in English that said something close to: 
>(see original message below) 

Maybe... Because you (and Whoever) could be the only one's who haven't read 
my previous posts about how to study the Secret Doctrine (SD). :-) 

The problem is that you think I was talking about the dead letter of its 
writing -- when, what I was talking about was its true meaning ... That can only 
be extracted and comprehended in one's higher mind when one follows HPB's 
instruction to her "intuitive students"... That, in essence, says, to understand 
any esoteric or occult writing (no matter when written and in whatever language, 
and especially a non pictorial or non inflectional linear language) one must 
be able to read "in an around the words and between the lines." This requires 
some intuitive understanding that the average reader might not have.

She also warned that the English language was particularly unsuited for this 
teaching and that there were certain necessary foreign words intentionally 
used -- for which the student would have to search out their meaning in a 
glossary, which she began writing for that purpose, as well as use dictionaries of 
both English and the other languages she was forced to write in (besides 
studying the ancient writers she translated and quoted or referenced). That's why 
she said that students can only learn theosophy through their own "self devised 
and self determined study and effort." Therefore, to the ordinary casual 
reader, the SD, even at the time it was written, could be totally confusing -- 
although they might have been able to accept its overall principles, underlying 
premises and conclusions with respect to reincarnation and karma, and "living 
the theosophical life."

So, I still say that the occult teachings in the SD (which is, in fact, a 
"textbook" of esoteric metaphysical doctrines for the most advanced student of 
theosophy, and eventually, occultism) -- are "timeless" -- in spite of all the 
denials by the pundits who have little idea of what theosophical occult 
teachings really entail... Since nature's fundamental reality or its metaphysical 
structure, operation, processes, correlation of forces, and laws of karma 
*cannot* change over time. 

Therefore, unless one is such an advanced student with a burning desire to 
know and a persistence to dig down to the deepest truths hidden in and around 
the words and between the lines, the writing in the SD could be taken by any 
superficial reader as a hodgepodge of utter nonsense. This, of course, was 
intentional -- since some of the deeper meanings, if understood, are dangerous in 
the hands of selfish and unethical people who haven't also understood and 
accepted the Heart Doctrine as the basis of their life, as well as for their yoga 
practices toward the attainment of self realization. 

Thus, so long as students fully understand the three fundamental principles 
(as they were explained in the Proem) that supports everything said in the SD, 
and uses them as the basis for understanding the "hidden" or occult teachings 
of the Secret Doctrine -- they will eventually attain whatever level of occult 
knowledge and adeptness in its application as their intellect and their 
intuition will allow them to reach. What use they make of this knowledge is left 
strictly to their own individual choice... Hopefully, in a direction of 
benevolent compassion, as was taught, in parallel with the SD's metaphysical 
teachings, in the Voice of the Silence and in some of HPB's other writings, along with 
the writing of WQJ in his Ocean of Theosophy and other books on theosophical 
meditation, etc. 

But, in any event, the SD stands alone as a fundamental teaching of esoteric 
wisdom that is as old as time itself. As for the purpose of bringing these 
theosophical teachings to the modern world (perfectly well predicted by the 
Masters who wrote the SD) that's completely covered in the Three Objects of the 
Theosophical Movement. See:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/3-ObjectsOfTheosophicalMovement/ 

Understanding the writing of any writers, of any time, that deal only with 
the ordinary matters of material life or even some of its mystical aspects, and 
understanding the underlying meaning behind esoteric writing of a Master 
occultist -- that intentionally covers up (with obscure writing and other "blinds") 
the deeper truths written only for the most advanced student to grasp -- are 
not comparable and have nothing to do with each other. So, to compare 
Shakespeare, the writers of the New Testament Bible, or any other fiction or 
documentary writers with HPB -- is like comparing apples with oranges. 

Best Wishes,

LHM

-----------ORIGINAL MESSAGE--------------

From: GodLovesEveryone.org@gmail.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04/23/05 12:05:06 PM


>No physical writing can be said to be timeless. That is nonsense Leon.

>When we consider, that the audience, language, the understanding of words

>and so on are changing,

>I think the reader will understand my point.

>Am I the only one here at Theos-talk who can see this?


I certainly understand you. Wasn't it one of the earliest versions of 

the Bible in English that said something close to:


"... and Joseph did not know Mary until after the Birth of Jesus."


I much prefer the more modern translations,


"... and Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born."


Physical writings are timeless only to those people who still understand 

the older grammar 100%. It's getting to the point that the average 

modern student cannot understand Shakespeare unless he has someone to 

help him understand it. A student who merely picks up the book and tries 

to read it without someone else present to explain the differences 

between that English and HIS English would probably abandon the book 

after a page or two (unless required to keep reading by a teacher).


Perhaps in much the same way that it is said that a reader cannot fully 

comprehend the Talmud unless he has a teacher to help him understand it. 

I'm sure that the Talmudist would say that the Talmud is timeless, even 

though the non-trained person would not be able to read it and get the 

same thing out of it as another person could. (Yes, a few years ago, I 

was fortunate enough to find a Talmud study group that allowed non-Jews 

(and parenthetically, also women) to participate. Unfortunately, it was 

so far away (two hour round trip), I had to stop after awhile.)


> It is not a true picture about what is going on, when one is reading 

a book.

> Depending on who you are, you are often using

> a) Your physical eye to read the book

> b) your emotional body while reading it

> c) your mental faculties and your intellect.

> d) and to some of us also higher levels of consciousness - ...


I fully agree that no book, by itself, can give us a true picture of 

what is inside the mind of the author, no matter how many times the 

reader reads the book. This is even true of the authors that the writer 

of the above claim that everyone should read (if that person makes such 

a claim, that is).


Every time I reread a book, I get something new out of it that I didn't 

get the first time. The first time I read the Chronicles of Narnia

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=recommendations&path=tg/stores/
series/-/15/ref=pd_sr_ec_ser_b


I read it mainly for the enjoyment, though I did get some spiritual 

insights from it.


The second time I read it, I was more ready to understand and comprehend 

the spiritual aspects.


The third time I read the seven books, I became uncomfortable because I 

finally realized that one book may have been intended to show negative 

stereotypes of the Arabian people, though I might be wrong.

(snip)