Re: Theos-World RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?
Aug 25, 2005 12:39 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Dallas,
As I said I make little of any "traditions." That is because they do not
unite but rather emphasize differences.
You may not, but the tradition which you grew up does. For instance, I
have never heard of a ULT group offering a class on the Secret Doctrine
and Masters on the Path, where the two authors are given the same weight
of authority. On the other hand, you have in many of your posts
already given the Mahatmas, HPB and Judge higher authority over the
others. That in itself is one of the distinctive aspects of your
tradition--one that separates it from some other traditions.
Each individual is on his own, whether singly or as a part of any "group."
The naming of a "group" and its characteristics rules and regulations does
not ensure unanimity of agreement, or of minute attention to continual and
disciplined performance by any of the members.
However, groups generally operate by consensus of the whole rather than
unanimity.
The more time spent on describing, identifying and pursuing the differences
of "traditions" etc., the less is devoted to studying THEOSOPHY itself and
applying it is daily life.
I prefer to approach all studies, including Theosophy within a context.
If we do not understand context, then we become as naive children who
cannot discriminate. It is of course good to have the open mind like the
child, but not good to have the childish naivete. That can lead to
dangerous waters.
Important question: is it the Higher or the Lower Self that
is doing the controlling? Is it "wisdom-BUDDHI" or "folly-KAMA " that
motivates us ?
With rare exceptions, people live out their lives in the interface of
kama and manas. I have met people who have touched into the Buddhi,
but only after years of training motivated by solid commitment. None
of them are Theosophists. I just smile at the arrogance and ignorance
of Theosophists who have told me that if I only lived in my buddhic
body, I would find myself in agreement with their views.
Best wishes
Jerry
W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
8/25/2005 4:18 AM
From: Dallas
Dear Jerry:
As I said I make little of any "traditions." That is because they do not
unite but rather emphasize differences.
Each individual is on his own, whether singly or as a part of any "group."
The naming of a "group" and its characteristics rules and regulations does
not ensure unanimity of agreement, or of minute attention to continual and
disciplined performance by any of the members.
We all know this. People do as they please when alone and believe they are
unobserved.
But some like the idea of a kind of "protection" or "identification" as a
'groupee.' In the final analysis, these are unimportant.
Allow me to make some few philosophical statements (entirely of my own) for
your consideration:
True progress and spiritual advance is only achieved by knowing the SPIRIT,
how it ACTS, and what PERFECTION implies. And, since we all have the ATMA
(universal, ubiquitous SPIRIT) interiorly, we need to direct our thoughts
and questions to IT -- internally -- and not to some opinions or views
however well expressed -- externally.
Basic or source expressions and teachings of THEOSOPHY we owe to HPB and
she, to the Masters, and the Masters to THAT. [see S D I 570-5]
Regardless of how students act (or talk, or write) as units, or as bodies,
they are trying to mentally understand THEOSOPHY -- seeking, testing,
verifying -- but always working to the extent that they are self-motivated
and self-controlled.
They determine the amount of time and periods at which they engage in this
kind of study. Important question: is it the Higher or the Lower Self that
is doing the controlling? Is it "wisdom-BUDDHI" or "folly-KAMA " that
motivates us ?
No one forces anyone. No meetings or ceremonies, rites or traditions are
worth anything unless there is mental clarity and understanding; and then,
that is followed by heart-devotion. And where better to place that, than on
TRUTH (regardless of what it may be called, or where found.)
"THEOSOPHY" means 'Deific Wisdom.' Laws, Rules of Life, History, the PATH
to WISDOM, and the entire organization of the Universe is involved.
"Philosophy" implies the love of truth. The human mind (when uncolored by
preconception, prejudice or special limitations acquired and imposed,
usually in early childhood) apprehends this, and as a confirmation of laws
and fairness and justice in the universe are perceived, so an understanding
of spiritual life and moral rectitude emerges. [The YOGA-SUTRAS of PATANJALI
are a most valuable help in this kind of self study and self-organization.
A single SOURCE ("THE ABSOLUTE" some call it) exists that is indescribable
but recognized -- it is the same, whether near or far, interior to us or in
our vilest enemy. The progress of the immortal host of mind-monads (and of
all life-atoms wherever) is through reincarnation, and the conscious
sensitivity of the universe (and all its living components) is the ever
moving basis for continual progress and the minutest or gravest adjustments
that become essential.
The crude physical form (body) enshrines the Divine ATMA (which is also in
every portion of the incomprehensibly majestic WHOLE). Need more be said?
Our individual labor is never clear to others, yet its trend may be
sometimes apprehended. Groups of students arise so as to facilitate
individual studies. No labeling ever describes any individual and his own
decision-making apparatus.
The personal life always shields and secretes the moral Chooser who is the
eternal PERCEIVER that resides within. It is the employer of the human
Mind, the Psyche and Physical body as its amanuensis. [And these in turn are
composed of innumerable immortal Monads, each at its appropriate position in
this enormous and all encompassing evolutionary scheme [ see S D I 632 ]
-- a scheme that is based on an individual balance point of exactitude so
sensitive, that any and all deviations from harmony reverberate throughout
the vast whole and affect the advance of all the rest. Nothing is
unimportant. The "Moment of Choice" is always Now, and is imperative.
As it (the Mind-Monad) apprehends ever more surely the rules and laws of the
eternal and universal, impersonal environment it resides in, it becomes
apparent that the rules and laws of Karma, involving ethics, morals and
brotherhood reign over and within all.
Once that is grasped the rest is "easy."
The historical aspect of the presentation of THEOSOPHY is of interest but
does not affect the basic, core or source rules, laws and regulations of the
Universe, which they attempt to describe in a general way.
The more time spent on describing, identifying and pursuing the differences
of "traditions" etc., the less is devoted to studying THEOSOPHY itself and
applying it is daily life.
At lease that is how I see it.
I hope this is of help -- at least is saying what I think I understand.
Best wishes,
Dallas
================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:44 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?
Dear Dallas,
DTB
"About the various "traditions."
Of course there will be variances because, as you say, people adopt
opinions."
JHE
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.
DTB
I am NOT a "spokesman" for the U L T, although I am an associate and have
the freedom as such to speak or write as I think best -- and take the
consequences under Karma. [ read the U L T DECLARATION -- no rules,
by-laws or officers, sole object to study and apply THEOSOPHY -- for all of
us: HPB and the Masters are the primary SOURCE -- not Sinnett, Olcott, S.
Row, Besant, CWL, etc... -- we are all primarily students of HPB and
Master's teachings. All the rest is interpretations of various levels of
accuracy and value -- where did THEOSOPHY come to us from? What have I to
do with secondary opinions when I can go to the original? Why waste my time?
Who says it is impossible to contact the mind of HPB and the Masters (and
understand Them) if I have, interior to myself, my own spark of the
Universal and Divine ATMA ? I and everything else in the whole Universe is
a mass of MONADS -- that is SPIRIT (ATMA) and purified MATTER (BUDDHI)]
DTB
"U L T holds to the tradition of the Blavatsky original presentations. "
JHE
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.
DTB
"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. "
The rest is surface work, designed to give free introduction and assistance
to those desiring it, in introducing THEOSOPHY and its marvelous ideas that
give mankind a tremendous rise (boost) towards an achievable future, if they
can grasp that SPIRIT (is first of all interior to them already) and is the
firm and real friend of "matter" always.
And, we are NOT "sinners!" [ The Monad is SPIRIT-MATTER UNITED. -- And that
is: the fact of already existing and imperishable, inseparable, realistic
BROTHERHOOD.]
JHE
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.
DTB HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ? IT IS INCORRECT. Read the DECLARATION
of U L T.
JHE
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?
JHE
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.
DTB
"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!" ]
JHE
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.
DTB AND HOW CAN YOU SET UP TO QUESTION THE MASTERS ?
OR HPB -- HAVE YOU TRIED ? I do it all the time since I have to use my
"Lower Mind" to study -- and force it to consider universal, impersonal and
eternal concepts.
DTB
"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.]"
JHE
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.
DTB
"If any student, anywhere and at any time, wants to know what THEOSOPHY is,
then why not go to the ORIGINALS?
JHE
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.
DTB "and two of Sinnett's books and Collins' "Light on the Path."
NO I WOULD NOT INCLUDE THESE AS BASICS personally, no.
U L T recommends HPB and Judge's writings. It recommends a search for
consistency. Noting is to be taken on faith or blindly -- and especially
any "traditions," as they are worthless and usually quite empty of meaning
or results.
DTB
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 .
JHE
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.
DTB To be fair, the passages in question have to be made precise. On
comparison we may see if they deviate. Otherwise, we are guessing.
====================
Best wishes,
To you Jerry
From Dal
------ CUT -----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
