Re: Theos-World RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?
Aug 24, 2005 02:44 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Dallas,
About the various "traditions."
Of course there will be variances because, as you say, people adopt
opinions.
Yes, people adopt opinions. For instance, the various associates at ULT
will hold a variety of opinions, and my disagree on various issues in
Theosophy. On the other hand, they are united to fulfill ULT's
purpose. However, by traditions, I mean the values and customs carried
on by the organizations and transmitted down through their generations
of members or associates.
U L T holds to the tradition of the Blavatsky original presentations.
Yes, ULT seeks to preserve and promulgate the original writings.
However, ULT also has a unique tradition of customs as to how to go
about these tasks: For instance the custom of impersonality: "It is this
speaker's opinion that..."; The custom of a song book and the singing
of those songs at the Sunday morning meetings; the custom of the week
night lecture etc.
All the various "traditions," I find, have needed to be "resolved back" to
the original teachings, as say, presented in The SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS
UNVEILED, or The KEY TO THEOSOPHY and HPB's many ARTICLES.
You are coming from the assumption that there ought to be a consistency
between the various Theosophical writers. Well, this isn't always the
case. Blavatsky, and Sinnett were in touch with the Mahatmas, yet they
did not always agree. The Mars Mercury controversy is an example. ULT
tradition "resolved back" by reasoning that HPB was the Messenger,
therefore more authoritative than Sinnett. The Point Loma tradition
resolved it by going back to the Mahatma letters themselves--a solution
that was discouraged in the ULT tradition. The Adyar Tradition, during
the Besant era, adopted Leadbeater as a higher authority than Blavatsky
(CWL often "corrects" Blavatsky in his writings). Leadbeater, coming
out of London Lodge, carries on the tradition begun by Sinnett.
Halcyon follows the Judge tradition, but have their own line of teachers
in contact with the Masters. The Steiner tradition which became the
Anthroposophical Society, follows Christian mystical traditions and
cautions that Blavatsky erred in promoting Eastern teachings. etc. Can
this all be "resolved back" to "the original teachings" (Another phrase
that sounds good, but hard to pin down when observed critically and in
detail.)?
Well, believe it or not, I have met people who claim that they can and
they have. But for most of us, they cannot be resolved. So, what do we
do? My personal answer is to say: Well, we have numerous traditions of
teachings that contradict each other. So, let's identify the
traditions, recognize the differences, and just let it go. I think it
an injustice to suggest that a teaching is "wrong" because it contracts
Blavatsky or Judge. All we can say is: this and that teaching appears
to contradict each other. Does that mean that one is wrong, and the
other right? Not necessarily. The later teaching may or may not be a
fuller explanation of the former. It is up to the individual student to
decide: not for the pull of tradition to decide for them.
This requires intensive study -- most of the traditions we hear of, and can
all read, are somehow of the flavor of attempted "short-cuts" and, in some
cases: a bit of one-up-manship. ["HPB made mistakes!" "We know better than
HPB!" ]
Yes, it requires intensive study. However, neither the Masters nor HPB
ever claim infallibility. That they made mistakes must always remain a
possibility. To deny that possibility creates a closed attitude and a
dogmatism comparable to the notion of papal infallibility. It is also,
IMO a mistake to judge these teachings from a self devised standard of
"TRUTH." My position is that any teaching that makes for a better
human being is a good teaching for that person, whether that teaching
contradicts HPB or not.
As such, if they are inaccurate, they only extend a student's time and
effort to secure the BASICS -- by even more study, reconciliation and
comparison. [And any true student ought to do that too, as a matter of
individual safety and precaution, specially, if what he offers may serve as
explanation or introduction to others.]
My philosophy of teaching has always been: "If you want to study
Platonism" then start by reading Plato. However, for Theosophy, there
are now many theosophies: Blavatsky theosophy, Leadbeater theosophy,
Purucker theosophy etc. For inquirers into Theosophy, we begin at the
historical beginning. We start with Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters.
We are still reading them. When they feel ready to go on to something
else--we will go onto something else.
If any student, anywhere and at any time, wants to know what THEOSOPHY is,
then why not go to the ORIGINALS?
Which, in ULT tradition, has been Blavatsky, Judge and two of Sinnett's
books and Collins' "Light on the Path."
Instead of "ORIGINALS" I prefer the term "source texts" (in lower
case). In my opinion, the source texts would be (in order of
importance): The original source historical documents; The Mahatma
Letters (all of them); Blavatsky's writings (taken in chronological
order). Judge would be secondary because, as you say below: "He copied
what HPB taught." Sinnett would be secondary because he expressed in
his own words what he learned from the Mahatmas. Since we have the
Mahatma Letters, we can see for ourselves what they taught.
And where and how did the "Point Loma" views on the SEVEN PRINCIPLES diverge
from those of Mr. Judge ? See below how he presented them. He copied what
HPB taught in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY and in the SECRET DOCTRINE .
If by "diverge" you mean deviate from the truth; I don't know if they
did. A better question might be: does Judge and Purucker teachings
differ? If so; how? If they differ, does that make Judge right and
Purucker wrong? Not necessarily.
Best wishes,
Jerry
W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
8/24/2005 3:16 AM
Dear Jerry:
May I butt in ?
About the various "traditions."
Of course there will be variances because, as you say, people adopt
opinions.
U L T holds to the tradition of the Blavatsky original presentations.
She was the one who was designated by the Masters, to labor, to bring their
"message." I would say that only that which is written in the MAHATMA
LETTERS compares with what she wrote. Its place in our "literature" begins
where ISIS UNVEILED left off.
But remember that it was written mainly to a single student, and is
contemporary to the articles, developments, queries and other material in
the THEOSOPHIST magazine (1879...).
Then, historically, PATH (1886...) started in New York, and a year later HPB
started LUCIFER in London (1887...) -- then, in 1888-9 she offered the
SECRET DOCTRINE, The KEY TO THEOSOPHY and The VOICE OF THE SILENCE.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE (1890) adds to this, and later, the
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (1892) .
Mr. Judge, in PATH offered parallel views, and HPB once said of its articles
and work: "...it is pure Buddhi..." while she called the work done in
LUCIFER: "...fighting combative Manas."
The rest that we have in later magazines is second or third level Theosophy
(?) -- reconstituted by students from their study of primary documents, and
hence, while helpful, may not be too reliable, and needs to be carefully
checked.
Unfortunately, some of these later writers indulged in unbridled fancies,
and distorted versions of THEOSOPHY were issued by them as authoritative.
Any good student will have verified this for himself by carefully
considering and comparing those second and third level writings with the
originals. We ought to note that the most helpful of those magazines
reprinted HPB and Judge articles which had gone out-of-print.
All the various "traditions," I find, have needed to be "resolved back" to
the original teachings, as say, presented in The SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS
UNVEILED, or The KEY TO THEOSOPHY and HPB's many ARTICLES.
This requires intensive study -- most of the traditions we hear of, and can
all read, are somehow of the flavor of attempted "short-cuts" and, in some
cases: a bit of one-up-manship. ["HPB made mistakes!" "We know better than
HPB!" ]
As such, if they are inaccurate, they only extend a student's time and
effort to secure the BASICS -- by even more study, reconciliation and
comparison. [And any true student ought to do that too, as a matter of
individual safety and precaution, specially, if what he offers may serve as
explanation or introduction to others.]
Whether this is considered the U L T "tradition" or not is immaterial.
But it is good scholarship.
If any student, anywhere and at any time, wants to know what THEOSOPHY is,
then why not go to the ORIGINALS?
That is: study HPB's and the Masters' writings! We have that as a
magnificent and significant advantage. Literacy affords a tremendous
opportunity in this cycle. The printing press, and now Internet, give a
wonderful diffusion and impetus to THEOSOPHY.
If that question (as to what "tradition" is to be supported) is answered
(each to himself) the reason for confusion may be made to disappear, and, no
apologies needed.
And where and how did the "Point Loma" views on the SEVEN PRINCIPLES diverge
from those of Mr. Judge ? See below how he presented them. He copied what
HPB taught in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY and in the SECRET DOCTRINE .
Best wishes, as always,
Dallas
================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: To Jerry HE:
Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?
Dear Dallas,
I appreciate your exposition of Theosophical teachings from what you
consider to be source writings.
However, different Theosophical traditions have different notions about
which writers are authoritative, which writers are less so, and how to
interpret these writings. What I am suggesting is that what is taught in
the ULT tradition about the seven principles is not necessarily helpful in
understanding what the
Point Loma Tradition taught about the seven principles.
No judgment about either system is implied here.
Just that we can't learn much
about ducks by studying rabbits.
Best wishes,
Jerry
================== COPIED ========================
Mr. Judge wrote:
SEVEN-FOLD NATURE AND MAN -- " 7 PRINCIPLES"
The universe evolves from the unknown, on seven planes, and in
seven ways in all worlds. And this sevenfold differentiation
causes all the worlds of the universe, and the beings thereon, to
have a septenary constitution.
The divisions of the sevenfold universe may be laid down roughly
as: The Absolute, Spirit, Mind, Matter, Will, Akasa or AEther,
and Life. In place of "the Absolute" we can use the word "Space."
For "Space" is that which ever is, and in which all manifestation
must take place.
Our knowledge begins with differentiation, and all manifested
objects, beings, or powers are only differentiations of the Great
Unknown.
The most that can be said of the Absolute" is that IT
periodically differentiates itself, and periodically withdraws
the differentiated into itself. As to "the Absolute," we can do
no more than say IT IS. None of the Great Teachers of the School
ascribe qualities to "the Absolute," although all qualities exist
in It.
The first differentiation -- speaking metaphysically as to
time -- is Spirit, with which appears Matter and Mind. This is a
Unit, and, called the "Monad." [ In manifestation, it is a
triune Unity, consisting of: ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS, or, Spirit -
Wisdom - Mind] The Monad is held to be immortal throughout the
great life-cycle, whether Manvantara or Kalpa. It is the basis
for human Individuality.
The term "Akasa," taken from the Sanskrit, is used in place of
AEther, to properly designate that tenuous state of matter which
is now sometimes called "Ether" by modern science. Akasa is
produced from Matter and Spirit.
Will is the force of Spirit in action. And Life (Jiva) is a
resultant of the action of Akasa, moved by Spirit, upon Matter.
But the Matter here spoken of, is not that which is commonly
known as such. It is the Real Matter which is always invisible,
and has sometimes been called Primordial Matter. In the
Brahmanical system it is called "Mulaprakriti" (or "Root
Matter"). And it is sometimes referred to as "Maha-Buddhi." [In
considering this, one may think of an "atom" as essentially an
eternal, individualized field of electro-magnetic Force.
Physical material is condensed in and around it by attraction.
The formation of worlds, and the reincarnation of human Souls,
may be thought of in similar terms, and follow a similar pattern.]
The ancient teaching always held, as is now admitted by Science,
that we see or perceive only the phenomena but not the essential
nature, cause or being of Matter.
SOUL -- EGO -- MIND
Nearly everyone says he has a soul and a body, and there it ends. What the
soul is, and whether it is the real person or whether it has any powers of
its own, are not inquired into, the preachers usually confining themselves
to its salvation or damnation. And by thus talking of it as something
different from oneself, the people have acquired an underlying notion that
they are not souls because the soul may be lost by them. From this has come
about a tendency to materialism causing men to pay more attention to the
body than to the soul, the latter being left to the tender mercies of the
priest of the Roman Catholics, and among dissenters the care of it is most
frequently put off to the dying day. But when the true teaching is known it
will be seen that the care of the soul, which is the Self, is a vital matter
requiring attention every day, and not to be deferred without grievous
injury resulting to the whole man, both soul and body..
THE 7-FOLD CLASSIFICATION
H. P. Blavatsky directly from the Great Lodge of Initiates.places.the old
doctrine [of seven-fold Man] before western civilization. The
classification is:
1. The Body, or Rupa.
2. Vitality, or Prana-Jiva.
3. Astral Body, or Linga-Sarira.
4. Animal Soul, or Kama-Rupa
5. Human Soul, or Manas.
6. Spiritual Soul, or Buddhi.
7. Spirit, or Atma,
The words in the Sanskrit language are adopted the English terms. This
classification stands to this day for all practical purposes, but it is
capable of modification and extension.
For instance, a later arrangement which places ASTRAL BODY second instead
of third in the category does not substantially alter it. It at once gives
an idea of what man is, very different from the vague description by the
words "body and soul," and also boldly challenges the materialistic
conception that mind is the product of brain, a portion of the body.
No claim is made that these principles were hitherto unknown, for they were
all understood in various ways not only by the Hindus but by many Europeans.
Yet the compact presentation of the sevenfold constitution of man in
intimate connection with the septenary constitution of a chain of Globes
through which the being evolves, had not been given out.
Considering these constituents in another manner, we would say that the
lower man is a composite being, but in his real nature is a unity, or
immortal being, comprising a trinity of Spirit, Discernment, and Mind which
requires four lower mortal instruments or vehicles through which to work in
matter and obtain experience from Nature.
This trinity is that called Atma-Buddhi-Manas in Sanskrit, difficult terms
to render in English. Atma is Spirit, Buddhi is the highest power of
intellection, that which discerns and judges, and Manas is Mind. This
threefold collection is the real man; and beyond doubt the doctrine is the
origin of the theological one of the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
The four lower instruments or vehicles are shown in this table:
Real Man is :
Atma,
Buddhi,
Manas,
Lower Vehicles are :
. The Passions and Desires,
. Life Principle,
. Astral Body,
. Physical Body.
These four lower material constituents are transitory and subject to
disintegration in themselves as well as to separation from each other. When
the hour arrives for their separation to begin, the combination can no
longer be kept up, the physical body dies, the atoms of which each of the
four is composed begin to separate from each other, and the whole collection
being disjointed is no longer fit for one as an instrument for the real man.
DEATH of the PHYSICAL
This is what is called "death" among us mortals, but it is not death for the
real man because he is deathless, persistent, immortal. He is therefore
called the Triad, or indestructible trinity, while they are known as the
Quaternary or mortal four.
This quaternary or lower man is a product of cosmic or physical laws and
substance. It has been evolved during a lapse of ages, like any other
physical thing, from cosmic substance, and is therefore subject to physical,
physiological, and psychical laws which govern the race of man as a whole.
Hence its period of possible continuance can be calculated just as the limit
of tensile strain among the metals used in bridge building can be deduced by
the engineer. Any one collection in the form of man made up of these
constituents is therefore limited in duration by the laws of the
evolutionary period in which it exists. Just now, that is generally seventy
to one hundred years, but its possible duration is longer. Thus there are in
history instances where ordinary persons have lived to be two hundred years
of age; and by a knowledge of the occult laws of nature the possible limit
of duration may be extended nearly to four hundred years.
. THE VISIBLE PHYSICAL MAN IS:
.
. Brain, Nerves, Blood, Bones, Lymph, Muscles, Organs of Sensation and
Action, and Skin.
. THE UNSEEN PHYSICAL MAN IS:
.
. Astral Body, Passions and Desires, Life Principle (called prana or
jiva).
It will be seen that the physical part of our nature is thus extended to a
second department which, though invisible to the physical eye, is
nevertheless material and subject to decay.
REAL AND UNREAL
Because people in general have been in the habit of admitting to be real
only what they can see with the physical eye, they have at last come to
suppose that the unseen is neither real nor material. But they forgot that
even on the earth plane noxious gases are invisible though real and
powerfully material, and that water may exist in the air held suspended and
invisible until conditions alter and cause its precipitation.
Let us recapitulate before going into details. The Real Man is the trinity
of Atma-Buddhi-Manas, or Spirit and Mind, and he uses certain agents and
instruments to get in touch with nature in order to know himself.
These instruments and agents are found in the lower Four -- or the
Quaternary -- each principle in which category is of itself an instrument
for the particular experience belonging to its own field, the body being the
lowest, least important, and most transitory of the whole series.
For when we arrive at the body on the way down from the Higher Mind, it can
be shown that all of its organs are in themselves senseless and useless when
deprived of the man within.
Sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smelling do not pertain to the body but to
the second unseen physical man, the real organs for the exercise of those
powers being in the ASTRAL BODY, and those in the physical body being but
the mechanical outer instruments for making the coordination between nature
and the real organs inside.
[Extracts from THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY ]
D T B
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
