Theos-Talk Archives (September 2005 Message tt00006)

Dear Dallas,

> DTB	I know that, you don’t --- but sometimes GdeP does, when he starts
> at the outset telling his audience that they will not understand.......”
> If we all have the same supernal Principles (as in the Monad: ATMA – BUDDHI)
> then why say anything like that? 
Yes, I recall G de P starting out like that in some of his ES lectures. 
All of those and others were later printed as books without putting them 
into a more proper form for written discourse. G de P, I have been 
told, also conveyed a great deal of his meanings through voice 
variations--sometimes, almost to a whisper when communicating an idea 
which is particularly profound. There are other books of his which are 
really compilations of answers, or in one case, compilations of 
questions and answers he gave at various meetings. So, if one is not 
aware at the onset that his books are for the most part merely 
transcriptions of lectures, then some of his phrasing comes off rather 
odd, or tends to take on another shade of meaning because of the change 
in context and mode of communication.

As for G de P telling his audience that they will not understand, then 
commencing to explain it anyway, was a pretty common thing he did. This 
has to be taken in context with one of G de P's central teachings: that 
the kama-manasic mind, or what he called the "brain-mind" is not 
capable of grasping deeper teachings. So, when he goes on to explain a 
concept, he knows that the audience will get an idea of the teaching on 
a manasic level, but they will not be able to truly understand it until 
they are able to develop their faculties of direct spiritual 
perception. He explains that even direct spiritual perception, when 
taken back through the "brain-mind" becomes distorted. This is way 
ordinary clairvoyants (even the very good ones) never really leave the 
earthly realms of perception. So, G. de P. makes a distinction between 
the "ordinary clairvoyance" and "spiritual clairvoyance." 
In one of his books, the 3 volume "Dialogues of G. de Purucker," I 
believe, one of his students asked him a very profound question. Keep 
in mind, that these "Dialogues" are among G. de P's most esoteric 
material, and this was to a small audience of his more advanced 
students. He answered the inquirer's question.
The enquirer then responded in such a way that made it plain to G de P 
that the enquirer misunderstood. G de P answered the question again, 
except in a very different way. He is not just repeat or elaborate his 
original explanation. The student still did not understand. G. de P. 
answered the question a third time, in still another very different 
way. His three answers to the same question and the three very 
different ways he treated the same topic becomes fascinating reading in 
itself.

> JHE
> Because "traditions" are part of the normal structure of our lives 
> through which people generally orient themselves to their reality. The 
> gain comes from learning to recognize which beliefs are a product of 
> tradition and which come through direct realization. 
>
> DTB	Yes – a problem since at that point the individual gives up his
> right and power of independent thinking. He no longer knows if a thing said
> is either logical, illogical or right or wrong. But as for any results, he
> still has to bear the responsibility -- as he did the ostrich bit: “burying
> its head in the sand” of IGNORANCE and UNCERTAINTY. 
Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of people who gladly give up their 
right and power of independent thinking as soon as they come across 
something they can trust. Late last week I went to a local "seminar" 
led by an Evangelical minister on the subject of the Wicca religion. I 
go to these things, not because of the information, but because I am 
very interested in the dynamics of the meetings themselves. In this 
case, it was not a seminar, as advertised. Rather, the minister 
communicated to the audience through different manipulative techniques 
that they are expected to stop thinking and let the minister do the 
thinking for them. Sadly, this phenomena does not only occur in 
Evangelical Christian meetings. I have also seen this kind of 
manipulation occur in Theosophical meetings.

> JHE
> That is the whole point--to unchain one's expressions from some norm. 
>
>
> DTB	That can only be done by severe care and constant attention, not the
> reverse. 
Precisely.


> There is danger in any “reliance on others,” unless the source has
> been repeatedly proven to be impartial, universally true and accurate, and
> asks the listener or reader to check and verify. 
In my opinion, reliance on others, even those which are reliable, is a 
danger. Ultimately we need to learn to rely upon ourselves.

> And, usually provides adequate references. 
> That is what THEOSOPHY does all the time, and by THEOSOPHY, I mean the
> originals not the add-ons.
HPB's writings, at least, generally provides references which can be 
checked. This is a sign of good scholarship. Still, even when the 
references check out, the reliability of the teachings has to be found 
within one's own experiences. 
> DTB
> NO – WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUALLY TEST AND VERIFY IT.
Precisely.

> JHE
> I realize that this is the standard essentialist approach. 
> DTB
> REALLY ? I would say it is accepting authority and therefore it is
> dangerous.
Right. Blind (and sometimes even reasoned) acceptance of authority is 
one of the dangers of essentialism. The other is the reliance upon 
metaphysical ultimates. Metaphysical ultimates may exist, but even if 
they do, their realm is beyond human experience at this point of our 
evolution. 
> JHE One can hear the difference in the way these people talk about Theosophy. 
> They do not memorize and utter phrases. 
> They do not use technical terminology. 
> They know the terms, but they also know how to talk about Theosophy to 
> those who never heard of Theosophy. 
> --------------------------------------
>
> DTB	Excellent method – now how is this correlated? How do they augment
> each-other? 
Through discussion.

> How can they verify what they have read and thought about?
Through their own experiences. Sometimes they reject an idea. This 
usually leads to further interesting discussions.


> Have they as individuals an as a group been actively building a consensus?
Passively they have been building a consensus. Consensus is not a goal 
here, but people who work together tend to build consensus anyway. 

> Is this recorded for future referral?
The consensus? No central record. Everyone keeps their own notes. 
They share notes, and sometimes borrow each other's notes. 
> May I send you a sample of a method used here at one of our study classes?
Yes, please. You are aware that I regularly attended ULT study classes 
in Los Angeles for about 15 years. Has the pedagogy changed since 1990?

> DTB	[OF COLOR means what ? In India I was called familiarly by school
> friends: "pinky!" -- which was how my skin color appeared to them - I was
> the "variant." ] 
"People of color" is a phrase used in sociology to denote those which 
are viewed by the dominant culture (sometimes called "White Anglo-Saxon 
Protestants") as belonging to a different cultural and socio-economic 
class. Their skin color may be darker, but not necessarily so. It 
refers to anyone who is subject to social and or economic discrimination 
because of their appearance. 
When I was working in South Central Los Angeles at a hospital, I was the 
"variant." They called me "white." It was only when someone called me 
"Honky" that I had cause to worry. 
> DTB	I agree that when one merges into a group that no longer thinks
> individually much is lost, even though such groups and their components are
> of statistical, demographic significance. And thus, we reenter the labeling
> process and the humanity of the INDIVIDUAL is played down into a political
> plaything -- and deemed contemptible. 
The problem is that the statistics and the demographics reflect real 
issues, such as poverty, job discrimination, diseases and brain damage 
in children caused by diet and filthy conditions resulting from the 
poverty. The "labeling process" on a statistical level is necessary to 
identify and solve the specific problems. The problem goes beyond 
bigotry. There are elements within our socio-economic system which 
benefits from this kind of discrimination. 
> Now if one looks at each of those humans as an actually internally being an
> immortal, self-evolving and responsible Monad, the whole perspective changes
> to the Theosophical one. 
Yes.

> I mean "motive" for individual decision now assumes
> the importance owed to it. How does one really act to benefit mankind? 
I think this generation, as a whole, is far more "color blind" then 
previous ones. I don't think, this alone will solve the problems. Our 
economic system also needs to be reformed. Ideally, acting to benefit 
humankind is to follow Kant's imperative. We are a long ways from that.

> Our so-called demographic analysis, is seen to be at best, an ephemeral
> presentation of what is assumed to be a political tool, suitable to be
> manipulated by the clever, sly ones who do such dirty work. 
Demographic analysis is a two-edged sword. Demographics are indeed used 
by political parties in order to devise strategies to maintain or win 
control over districts. Neither of the two major political parties have 
shown any interest in eliminating those kinds of studies. However, 
there are other demographic studies used for other purposes, such as 
the medical research of diseases which tend to occur only in certain 
gene pools. Sickle cell disease, is one example. I would say, that at 
this point, greater harm than good would be done if demographic studies 
were completely eliminated. Though, I would be in favor of eliminating 
the use of political demographics for the purpose of controlling 
districts. 
> I try to resist all such "pressures." I try to discover the root cause of
> any plea for use of my "vote," or "action (or those suggested and mandated
> by "society" managers and leaders) -- I know I will have to pay for it (I
> mean my silence or my decision to act) eventually. 
My wife teaches a class to graduate students on political corruption. 
It is an optional class for those who are training for a career in 
Public Administration--that aspect of Federal and local governments 
which serve the needs of the people. Needless to say, there is a 
political movement to privatize these services so that
they will be controlled by corporations for the purpose of making profit. 
I have sat in on some of my wife's classes on this subject. I think the 
main point that the students walk away with is that the corruption in 
government is systemic and, at this time, out of control. The only 
thing that Public Administrators will be able to do is to slow down the 
corruption by doing whatever is in their power not to become a part of 
it. Those who work within a system and speak out against the corruption 
are called "whistle blowers." Since there are no meaningful Federal or 
local protection for Whistle Blowers, they typically, at best, loose 
their jobs and are barred from getting another one in that field. At 
worst, they are murdered. There are rare exceptions, where the 
corruption is exposed, the whistle blower lives, and some action is 
taken against those who are benefiting from the corruption. Serpico, 
the New York cop who exposed the police corruption concerning the drug 
trade is one of those very rare examples. 
What can we do as ordinary citizens? Well, that is a tough decision. 
The corruption is pervasive in both political parties. Not voting 
doesn't help because there are always others who will vote. When we 
vote, we try to ask who or what proposition will do the least harm. 
But, to make intelligent decisions of that nature requires people to be 
aware of what their governments are doing, and get to know their local 
representatives. Unfortunately, most people limit their source of 
information to an evening news show--which as often as not, use their 
time for human interest stories. For instance, in my definition, the 
Scott Peterson case is not news, though it received hundreds of hours of 
broadcast time. The Enron case is news. But to learn anything 
meaningful about it, one has to go to the analytical articles published 
in such places as the Wall Street Journal. 
> JHE
> Are you aware that this is a stock answer from ULT tradition?
>
>
> DTB	You may so demark it. I find it an expression of a position that
> cannot be assailed morally. It also assumes I am a responsible thinking
> individual and not anyone's asinine tool -- to be manipulated because I am
> careless in my duty of careful attention.
What I am saying is that Theosophical traditions have embodied within 
them an "us against them" attitude. ULT is right because they stay 
with the originals. The other traditions are wrong because they strayed 
away from the originals. 
> JHE
> Are you aware that this view of Theosophical history is the view of 
> ULT's historical account in "The Theosophical Movement, 1875-1950?
> My own view is that history (of any subject) is an open and unending 
> inquiry. Interestingly, the ancient Greeks also saw it as an open 
> inquiry. 
>
> DTB	for 60 years or better, I have forced myself to read and review the
> documents connected with our current THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- and the
> AFTERMATH article series in THEOSOPHY magazine. 
Precisely my point. The Aftermath articles is an important historical 
account of the TM from the ULT point of view. Reading and reviewing 
the original documents is of course, a good thing. But, if all of that 
information is being filtered through a particular, pre-established 
orientation, then it just serves to reinforce the point of view one has 
already adopted.

If one wants to read historical accounts, then I would recommend reading 
all of the histories from all of the traditions as well as the 
independently written ones. The point is to break the mind set one 
gains when adopting a particular position. It is a defensive position 
which makes it difficult to gain new insights independent of the 
original orientation. 
> If we are reviewing the same material, then why differences, and why be
> vague about them? 
We are viewing the same material. If we have differences concerning 
history or teachings, they are of no real concern to me. My concern is 
about process and methodology--not about content. 
> Are differences to remain " brushed under the mat" or to be exposed and
> discussed and settled? 
Well, I'm already notorious about raising controversial issues for 
discussion. Though, I have never seen any of those issues "settled." 
> It took almost 100 years for the definitive biography of H. P. B. by
> Sylvia Cranston to be published {Tarcher, New York }. 
I would not call the biography "definitive." You may not be aware that 
I participated in the process of checking quotes and correcting errors 
in the 1st edition. But even in the later editions, there is and always 
will be more to do. Also, you are as aware as I am that even though 
the book was published independently, Sylvia Cranston was a ULT 
associate, and her biography is typically representative of the ULT 
tradition. 
> Now in regard to Mr. W. Q. Judge (and the infamous JUDGE CASE), Mr. Ernest
> Pelletier in Edmonton, president of the Edmonton THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, has
> published a large volume vindicating his position. Have you a copy?
I have a copy. Ernie clearly states in the beginning of the book that 
his intention is to vindicate Judge. He selected and ordered the 
documents, and formulated his arguments to achieve this end. If Ernie 
had used a neutral methodology for the purpose of exploring the various 
issues in the case, for the purpose of better understanding the case (as 
apposed to vindicating on or another person's position), I would have 
been much more impressed with the book.

I would say that the most valuable aspect of the book is that he put 
into print, thus making available, many scarce documents. But I 
already had copies of all of these documents. 
Best wishes,
Jerry







W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

> 9/1/2005 4:24 AM
>
> Thanks Jerry
>
> Notes below as usual
>
> Dallas
>
> ==================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1:40 PM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: PART I -- Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this 
>
> Dear Dallas,
>
> DTB	I agree, not relevant. Books contain ideas, and it is to those I
> refer. SECRET DOCTRINE displays them, I don't need interpretations -- I
> prefer to go directly to any SOURCE. 
> JHE
> Yes, the book, The Secret Doctrine is a printed text, which was intended 
> to convey certain ideas. People read this book and get different meanings
> out of it. 
> JHE
> Believe me Dallas, I am not talking down to you. 
> ----------------------------------------
>
> DTB	I know that, you don’t --- but sometimes GdeP does, when he starts
> at the outset telling his audience that they will not understand.......”
> If we all have the same supernal Principles (as in the Monad: ATMA – BUDDHI)
> then why say anything like that? 
> -------------------------------
>
> DTB
> So why bother about "traditions?" What is gained thereby?
>
>
> JHE
> Because "traditions" are part of the normal structure of our lives 
> through which people generally orient themselves to their reality. The 
> gain comes from learning to recognize which beliefs are a product of 
> tradition and which come through direct realization. 
>
> DTB	Yes – a problem since at that point the individual gives up his
> right and power of independent thinking. He no longer knows if a thing said
> is either logical, illogical or right or wrong. But as for any results, he
> still has to bear the responsibility -- as he did the ostrich bit: “burying
> its head in the sand” of IGNORANCE and UNCERTAINTY. 
> ------------------------------------------
>
> DTB
> And why chain ones expressions to some "norm ?" Who benefits? 
> JHE
> That is the whole point--to unchain one's expressions from some norm. 
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> DTB	That can only be done by severe care and constant attention, not the
> reverse. There is danger in any “reliance on others,” unless the source has
> been repeatedly proven to be impartial, universally true and accurate, and
> asks the listener or reader to check and verify. And, usually provides
> adequate references. 
> That is what THEOSOPHY does all the time, and by THEOSOPHY, I mean the
> originals not the add-ons.
>
> DTB
> NO – WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUALLY TEST AND VERIFY IT.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> JHE
> I realize that this is the standard essentialist approach. 
> ----------------------
> DTB
> REALLY ? I would say it is accepting authority and therefore it is
> dangerous.
> ----------------------------------
>
> JHE
> This approach does not work for this generation, so we do not use it. 
>
> JHE
> Here is how we use the SD: We hold day long SD seminars on a quarterly
> basis. 
> In this format, there are no experts lecturing on what the SD says; we do
> not sit around and read the text to each other; nor do we as students tell
> each other 
> what we think the text said. 
> Rather, students are given sections which they study and research on their
> own. We then meet, and the students share their discoveries--which always
> goes way beyond the text. 
> The difference between this method and those I have seen used in various 
> Theosophical traditions is that the students in our group express the 
> ideas they discovered in the SD in their own words. 
> They do not memorize passages in the text, nor do they adopt a jargon. 
> None of them have memorized the three fundamental propositions, but they can
> all explain, each in their own unique way, what those three fundamental 
> propositions are, and how they relate to the rest of the book. 
> For our approach, It is not about accuracy or inaccuracy of the text, nor
> about 
> accurately quoting the text. It is about the new realizations the students
> come to by engaging the text and exploring the subject matter on their own.
> The point of these seminars is embodied the process of understanding, not in
> the learning of information per se. 
> One can hear the difference in the way these people talk about Theosophy. 
> They do not memorize and utter phrases. 
> They do not use technical terminology. 
> They know the terms, but they also know how to talk about Theosophy to 
> those who never heard of Theosophy. 
> --------------------------------------
>
> DTB	Excellent method – now how is this correlated? How do they augment
> each-other? How can they verify what they have read and thought about?
> Have they as individuals an as a group been actively building a consensus?
> Is this recorded for future referral?
>
> May I send you a sample of a method used here at one of our study classes?
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> JHE
> I don't normally use any buzz words, neither the current ones nor the 
> "time tested ones." If I do, it is in full awareness, and usually 
> calculated to communicate a certain effect. I believe that the 
> important thing is not whether we use buzz words, old or new, but 
> that we are mindful of the fact that we are doing so. An example comes 
> to mind: At the beginning of the civil rights movement, in the early 
> 60s, people of color -- 
> -------------------------------
> DTB	[OF COLOR means what ? In India I was called familiarly by school
> friends: "pinky!" -- which was how my skin color appeared to them - I was
> the "variant." ] 
> ----------------------------------------
>
> used to come into the coffee houses with new slogans and banners. The new
> slogans were stunning--they communicated in a few words a long history of
> oppression and way to bring it to an end. 
> After a year or so, they still came in uttering the same slogans 
> and waving the same banners. But, by that time, they had become so used 
> to uttering them that they had already stopped thinking about what they 
> really met. They had put themselves in a box, and lost the ability to 
> see beyond it. They had to reinvent themselves. Then it was W. E. B. 
> Dubois. Later it became civil rights marches. Personal growth, as well 
> as social progress continues as long as we are able to see through and 
> step out of the forms that we create for ourselves. 
> -------------------------------------------
>
> DTB	I agree that when one merges into a group that no longer thinks
> individually much is lost, even though such groups and their components are
> of statistical, demographic significance. And thus, we reenter the labeling
> process and the humanity of the INDIVIDUAL is played down into a political
> plaything -- and deemed contemptible. 
> Now if one looks at each of those humans as an actually internally being an
> immortal, self-evolving and responsible Monad, the whole perspective changes
> to the Theosophical one. I mean "motive" for individual decision now assumes
> the importance owed to it. How does one really act to benefit mankind? 
> Our so-called demographic analysis, is seen to be at best, an ephemeral
> presentation of what is assumed to be a political tool, suitable to be
> manipulated by the clever, sly ones who do such dirty work. 
> As I see it, it is amoral at best, and a kind of black-magic action
> (conscious or unconscious) at worst. 
>
> I don't consider this the best aspect of life and living, do you? 
> I try to resist all such "pressures." I try to discover the root cause of
> any plea for use of my "vote," or "action (or those suggested and mandated
> by "society" managers and leaders) -- I know I will have to pay for it (I
> mean my silence or my decision to act) eventually. 
> --------------------------------------------
>
> DTB	I am a product of my own decisions and work. I say that the U L T
> method and attitude has been most helpful -- at least I am NOT burdened with
> the need to excuse the poor judgment of those who have diverted theosophical
> study away from HPB and the Masters. 
> JHE
> Are you aware that this is a stock answer from ULT tradition?
>
> -------------------------------------
> DTB	You may so demark it. I find it an expression of a position that
> cannot be assailed morally. It also assumes I am a responsible thinking
> individual and not anyone's asinine tool -- to be manipulated because I am
> careless in my duty of careful attention.
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> JHE
> Are you aware that this view of Theosophical history is the view of 
> ULT's historical account in "The Theosophical Movement, 1875-1950?
> My own view is that history (of any subject) is an open and unending 
> inquiry. Interestingly, the ancient Greeks also saw it as an open 
> inquiry. 
> ----------------------------------------
>
> DTB	for 60 years or better, I have forced myself to read and review the
> documents connected with our current THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- and the
> AFTERMATH article series in THEOSOPHY magazine. 
> If we are reviewing the same material, then why differences, and why be
> vague about them? 
> Are differences to remain " brushed under the mat" or to be exposed and
> discussed and settled? 
> It took almost 100 years for the definitive biography of H. P. B. by
> Sylvia Cranston to be published {Tarcher, New York }. 
> Now in regard to Mr. W. Q. Judge (and the infamous JUDGE CASE), Mr. Ernest
> Pelletier in Edmonton, president of the Edmonton THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, has
> published a large volume vindicating his position. Have you a copy?
>
>
> Thanks best wishes 
> Dal
>
>
>
>
>
>
> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>
>
>
> > 8/31/2005 3:56 AM
> >
> > Hi Jerry: Thanks for notes and answers.
> >
> > I respond below with some inserts;
> >
> > Dallas
> >
> > ================================
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins
> > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 11:34 AM
> > To: 
> > Subject: Re: PART I -- RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view
> given
>
>
> > by Frank?
> >
> >
> > Dear Dallas,
> >
> > DTB
> > Of course, if the teachings of THEOSOPHY in the S D are to you only one of
> > many traditions, then it may useless to continue and let us both be
> > satisfied that there are in the Universe adequate room for many approaches
> > to TRUTH.
> > 	
> >
> > JHE
> > It appears that you are not tracking with me. Traditions are social 
> > constructions created by people acting in common interests over a period 
> > of time and handed down. Those social constructions include beliefs, 
> > opinions, customs, rites etc. The SD is not a tradition, but a book. 
> > As a book, it plays a part in all of the Theosophical traditions that I 
> > know of. 
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > DTB	I agree, not relevant. Books contain ideas, and it is to those I
> > refer. SECRET DOCTRINE displays them, I don't need interpretations -- I
> > prefer to go directly to any source. 
> > I intensely resent being "talked down to," as everyone's mind is derived
> >
> >
> > from the UNIVERSAL MIND, there are only students and seekers and no
>
> > "authorities." So why bother about "traditions?" What is gained thereby?
> > And why chain ones expressions to some "norm ?" Who benefits? 
> > If one suspects or denies the accuracy op of the information given in the
> > SECRET DOCTRINE, because of personal likes or dislikes -- I don't believe
> > that alters the power or depth of the presentation. 
> > On the other hand if we don't read what is there, we will remain ignorant
> of
>
>
> > certain facts that cold be of great importance. 
> > ---------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > DTB
> > I do not like labeling or being labeled. It has the disadvantage of being
> > too cursory. It may be fair to a collection of personalities, but it is
> too
>
>
> > gross a net to include Individualities. 
> >
> > JHW
> > Fair enough. But, you labeled yourself. You wrote:
> >
> > One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is
> one
>
>
> > that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS. 
> >
> > JHE
> > So, apparently you also see yourself as preferring an essentialist 
> > approach. While all approaches have their advantages and limitations, I 
> > find it interesting that people do find themselves favoring one or 
> > another. I think it is partly a generational thing. Recently two 
> > writers, Strauss and Howe came out with a book called generations. It 
> > is a fascinating study on this subject. It shows, for instance, the 
> > common characteristics of the neo-conservatives and the hippies of 
> > George Bush's generation. 
> > ------------------
> >
> > DTB	I do not feel influenced by the time, generation, or any of the
> > current buzz words or concepts -- I prefer to time tested ones. So I
> employ
>
>
> > those I find to any situation or problem. One less category to worry
> about.
>
>
> > I freely agree I prefer being a "generalist." I am not hampered by what
> > "neighbors" will say. As if that mattered ? Look at history. Whose
> > records stand out? The hoi polloi, or the Platos and the Pythagorases?
> > What makes the difference?
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> >
> > DTB
> > Theosophical inter-communication will be of great importance, but every
> care
>
>
> > must be taken to keep it impersonal, non-partisan, non-proselytizing, while
> > at the same time a dependable source of information on Theosophical history
> > as well as philosophy. 
> >
> > JHE
> > I would say that inter-communication is now and always has been of great 
> > importance. Personal or impersonal? I think that depends upon the 
> > circumstances. I agree that inter-communication is best when non 
> > partisan and non-proselytizing. However, to do that, one must be aware 
> > of when one is partisan and/or proselytizing. 
> > To do that, each Theosophist must learn to step outside of the box, the
> > tradition, from which he/she came. It reminds me of the story of the
> > American that 
> > goes to France, and, finally in frustration, yells out, "Isn't there 
> > anyone here who can speak English!" It is only after we are exposed 
> > to, immerse ourselves in other traditions that we come to recognize that 
> > we are also a product of tradition. Sadly, there are some who never 
> > see it--even then. 
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > DTB	One starts by humbly learning French as a language. Pride gets one
> > nowhere. Everyone can teach us something. Conformity has its price !
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> >
> > DTB
> > It must be so conducted that it will never drift into any kind of a
> > controlling force. This can always be obviated and guarded against by
> > continual reiteration and application of the principle of union. "Mental
> > control" of any kind is contrary to the letter and the spirit of our
> > Declaration, and that, while Lodges and individuals may seek information,
> > advice and suggestion, they are not in any way bound in so doing.
> >
> >
> > JHE
> > This is interesting. You speak of the "spirit of our Declaration..." 
> > It sounds here that you are part of the ULT tradition, which you have 
> > been active for the last 60 years. Yet, yesterday, you wrote:
> > ]
> >
> > DTB	There we go again: You assume I have adopted a "tradition." I say
> > I am independent, but use any "tradition," to the extent that it is fair,
> > free of bias, and true to reason and logic. 
> >
> > JHE
> > Which is it? Do you see yourself as a product of ULT tradition or not? 
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > DTB	I am a product of my own decisions and work. I say that the U L T
> > method and attitude has been most helpful -- at least I am NOT burdened
> with
>
>
> > the need to excuse the poor judgment of those who have diverted
> theosophical
>
>
> > study away from HPB and the Masters. 
> > The History of modern THEOSOPHY is rather well documented and anyone can
> > makeup their own minds concerning the route followed by individual and
> > societies. 
> > But I would say that time spent on the study of THEOSOPHY is better than
> > that spent on studying the "history"(through their writings) of those
> > individuals who have seemingly influenced many, and caused the splits and
> > rivalries we now witness in what ought to be a unity. Such a Unity
> > (originally outlined but Olcott and HPB (see "Key") can only be based on
> > principles impartially applied and rigidly adhered to. 
> > I freely admit my connection with U L T as the freest and clearest of
> > the many "organisms" that employ the word "THEOSOPHY" 
> > However, as is said therein (Declaration of U L T ) I reserve my own
> > individual decision-making power to myself -- as in fact everyone does,
> > whether they say that they "belong" to one "society" or another, or to
> none.
>
>
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > DTB
> > We did not invent it. It was given to us; we stand in line and pass it
> > along, as people used to do at fires in passing the buckets of water. 
> >
> > JHE
> > Yes, that is what is called a tradition.
> >
> >
> > DTB
> > People are grateful to the one who passes the "water of life" along to
> them,
>
>
> > but the "passer" knows where gratitude belongs, and says: "don't thank me;
> > thank Theosophy-as I do. It enables me to help others; it will also enable
> > you." 
> >
> > JHE
> > They indeed are happy. However, it is better that they learn to find 
> > their own "water of life."
> >
> > =============================
> >
> > DTB	Agreed. More is gained thereby.
> >
> > thanks and enjoyed,
> >
> > Dal
> >
> > -----------
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> > --------	CUT	--------------
> >
> >
> > Consider the following:
> >
> >
> > "It is futile to accept revelations on anybody’s say-so. They convey no
> > knowledge, and it is actual knowledge that is required by each one.
> > Shibboleths and formulas are mere words, not a criterion of truth.
> >
> > Theosophy is in the world to present the means by which each one can
> acquire
>
>
> > knowledge for himself. Its study and application call forth the judgment
> and
>
>
> > discrimination latent in the man himself.
> >
> > Truth is not a man, nor a book, nor a statement. The nature of Truth is
> > universal; its possessors in any degree will be found to be appliers of
> > universality in thought, speech and action. Their efforts will be for
> > humanity regardless of sex, creed, caste or color. They will never be found
> > among those claiming to be the chosen spokesman of the Deity—and exacting
> > homage from their fellow-men: true Brotherhood includes the least developed
> > as well as the very highest. We must seek to give aid to all in search of
> > truth. 
> > Our value and aid in this great work will be just what we make them by our
> > motive, our judgment, our conduct.
> >
> > The heart-felt desire that others may benefit from our lives will be felt
> by
>
>
> > those open—it matters little how few; they may be the means of wakening
> many
>
>
> > others. It is the effort and the sacrifice that bring the ultimate results,
> > but in our zeal it is well to consider what the Masters have done, and do
> > year after year, age after age. 
> > They do what They can, when They can, and as They can—in accordance with
> > cyclic law. They conserve the knowledge gained—and wait. Knowing this, and
> > doing thus, there can be no room in us for doubt or discouragement. 
> > Theosophy is for those who want it. We are to hold, wait, and work for
> those
>
>
> > few earnest souls who will grasp the plan and further the Cause. Many have
> > their ears so dulled, or their attention so diverted, that no number of
> > repetitions can reach them—yet Theosophy must be held out continually for
> > all who will listen. That is our self-assumed work; we have our example in
> > H. P. B. and W. Q. J. to means, method and manner: let us imitate them, and
> > so do their work in their spirit.
> >
> > The Theosophical “arch” has been thrown across the abyss of creeds and
> > materialism. Some have discovered where a base rests on one or the other
> > side; others have found “stones” that belong to the arch, but the
> > “key-stone” has been “rejected” because of its irregular shape—all like the
> > story of old in Masonic tradition. But we are also reminded that the time
> > came when the rejected stone became “the head of the corner” because it was
> > found to be the key-stone. All the time there were those who knew of the
> > key-stone, but they were very few and their voices were not heard amid the
> > clamor of the claims made by those who had found portions of the arch and
> > desired recognition. So the few had to “Work, Watch—and ‘Wait,” knowing
> that
>
>
> > history repeats itself, and that there is nothing new under the sun.
> >
> > The allegory of the tower of Babel applies to the present times. Everything
> > is in confusion, everyone talking his own gibberish—and nobody listening. I
> > said “nobody”—but some are; a few realize that none of these things bring
> > knowledge. All that can be done is to let the light so shine that all who
> > will may seek it, thus sowing for future harvest. It would be a hopeless
> > task were is not for Reincarnation; so the great effort should be to
> > promulgate the fundamental principles of Unity, of Brotherhood, of Karma
> and
>
>
> > Reincarnation.
> >
> >
> > [ Bab-El means: Gateway of the SUN The portal to WISDOM. 
> > It has an esoteric significance, indicating one of the ancient mystery
> > schools and its teachings -- "within" -- and the confusion --
> "without."]
>
>
> > Also:
> >
> > "What was the religion of the Third and Fourth Races? In the common
> > acceptation of the term, neither the Lemurians, nor yet their progeny, the
> > Lemuro-Atlanteans, had any, as they knew no dogma, nor had they to believe
> > on faith. 
> > No sooner had the mental eye of man been opened to understanding, than the
> > Third Race felt itself one with the ever-present as the ever to be unknown
> > and invisible ALL, the One Universal Deity. Endowed with divine powers, and
> > feeling in himself his inner God, each felt he was a Man-God in his nature,
> > though an animal in his physical Self. 
> > The struggle between the two began from the very day they tasted of the
> > fruit of the Tree of Wisdom; a struggle for life between the spiritual and
> > the psychic, the psychic and the physical. Those who conquered the lower
> > principles by obtaining mastery over the body, joined the "Sons of Light." 
> > Those who fell victims to their lower natures, became the slaves of Matter.
> > > > From "Sons of Light and Wisdom" they ended by becoming the "Sons of
> > Darkness." They had fallen in the battle of mortal life with Life immortal,
> > and all those so fallen became the seed of the future generations of
> > Atlanteans.* 
> > At the dawn of his consciousness, the man of the Third Root Race had thus
> no
>
>
> > beliefs that could be called religion. That is to say, he was equally as
> > ignorant of "gay religions, full of pomp and gold" as of any system of
> faith
>
>
> > or outward worship. But if the term is to be defined as the binding
> together
>
>
> > of the masses in one form of reverence paid to those we feel higher than
> > ourselves, of piety — as a feeling expressed by a child toward a loved
> > parent — then even the earliest Lemurians had a religion — and a most
> > beautiful one — from the very beginning of their intellectual life. Had
> they
>
>
> > not their bright gods of the elements around 
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > * The name is used here in the sense of, and as a synonym of "sorcerers."
> > The Atlantean races were many, and lasted in their evolution for millions
> of
>
>
> > years: all were not bad. They became so toward their end, as we (the fifth)
> > are fast becoming now. 
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > them, and even within themselves? * 
> > Was not their childhood passed with, nursed and tendered by those who had
> > given them life and called them forth to intelligent, conscious life? We
> are
>
>
> > assured it was so, and we believe it. 
> > For the evolution of Spirit into matter could never have been achieved; nor
> > would it have received its first impulse, had not the bright Spirits
> > sacrificed their own respective super-ethereal essences to animate the man
> > of clay, by endowing each of his inner principles with a portion, or
> rather,
>
>
> > a reflection of that essence. 
> > The Dhyanis of the Seven Heavens (the seven planes of Being) are the
> > NOUMENOI of the actual and the future Elements, just as the Angels of the
> > Seven Powers of nature - the grosser effects of which are perceived by us
> in
>
>
> > what Science is pleased to call the "modes of motion" — the imponderable
> > forces and what not — are the still higher noumenoi of still higher
> > Hierarchies. [see S D I 570-5]
> >
> > It was the "Golden Age" in those days of old, the age when the "gods walked
> > the earth, and mixed freely with the mortals." Since then, the gods
> departed
>
>
> > (i.e., became invisible), and later generations ended by worshipping their
> > kingdoms — the Elements. 
> > It was the Atlanteans, the first progeny of semi-divine man after his
> > separation into sexes — hence the first-begotten and humanly-born mortals —
> > who became the first "Sacrificers" to the god of matter. 
> > They stand in the far-away dim past, in ages more than prehistoric, as the
> > prototype on which the great symbol of Cain was built, † as the first
> > anthropomorphists who worshipped form and matter. That worship degenerated
> > very soon into self-worship, thence led to phallicism, or that which reigns
> > supreme to this day in the symbolisms of every exoteric religion of ritual,
> > dogma, and form. Adam and Eve became matter, or furnished the soil, Cain
> and
>
>
> > Abel — the latter the life-bearing soil, the former "the tiller of that
> > ground or field." 
> > Thus the first Atlantean races, born on the Lemurian Continent, separated
> >
> >
> > from their earliest tribes into the righteous and the unrighteous; into
>
> > those who worshipped the one unseen Spirit of Nature, the ray of which man
> > feels within himself — or the Pantheists, and those who offered fanatical
> > worship to the Spirits of the Earth, the dark Cosmic, anthropomorphic
> > Powers, with whom they made alliance. These were the earliest Gibborim,
> "the
>
>
> > mighty men of renown in those days" (Gen. vi.); who become with the Fifth
> > Race the Kabirim: Kabiri with the Egyptians and the Phoenicians, Titans
> with
>
>
> > the Greeks, and Rakshasas and Daityas with the Indian races. 
> > Such was the secret and mysterious origin of all the subsequent and modern
> > religions, especially of the worship of the later Hebrews for their tribal
> > god. At the same time this sexual religion was closely allied to, based
> upon
>
>
> > and blended, so to say, with astronomical phenomena. 
> > The Lemurians gravitated toward the North Pole, or the Heaven of their
> > Progenitors (the Hyperborean Continent); the Atlanteans, toward the
> Southern
>
>
> > Pole, the pit, cosmically and terrestrially — whence breathe the hot
> > passions blown into hurricanes by the cosmic Elementals, whose abode it is.
> > The two poles were denominated, by the ancients, Dragons and Serpents —
> > hence good and bad Dragons and Serpents, and also the names given to the
> > "Sons of God" (Sons of Spirit and Matter): the good and bad Magicians. This
> > is the origin of this dual and triple nature in man. 
> > The legend of the "Fallen Angels" in its esoteric signification, contains
> > the key to the manifold contradictions of human character; it points to the
> > secret of man's self-consciousness; it is the angle-iron on which hinges
> his
>
>
> > entire life-cycle; — the history of his evolution and growth. 
> > On a firm grasp of this doctrine depends the correct understanding of
> > esoteric anthropogenesis. It gives a clue to the vexed question of the
> > Origin of Evil; and shows how man himself is the separator of the ONE into
> > various contrasted aspects. 
> > The reader, therefore, will not be surprised if so considerable space is
> > devoted in each case to an attempt to elucidate this difficult and obscure
> > subject. A good deal must necessarily be said on its symbological aspect;
> > because, by so doing, hints are given to the thoughtful student for his own
> > investigations, and more light can thus be suggested than it is possible to
> > convey in the technical phrases of a more formal, philosophical exposition.
> > The "Fallen Angels," so-called, are Humanity itself. The Demon of Pride,
> > Lust, Rebellion, and Hatred, has never had any being before the appearance
> > of physical conscious man. It is man who has begotten, nurtured, and
> allowed
>
>
> > the fiend to develop in his heart; he, again, who has contaminated the
> > indwelling god in himself, by linking the pure spirit with the impure demon
> > of matter. And, if the Kabalistic saying, "Demon est Deus inversus" finds
> > its metaphysical and theoretical corroboration in dual manifested nature,
> > its practical application is found in Mankind alone. 
> > Thus it has now become self-evident that postulating as we do (a) the
> > appearance of man before that of other mammalia, and even before the ages
> of
>
>
> > the huge reptiles; (b) periodical deluges and glacial periods owing to the
> > karmic disturbance of the axis; and chiefly (c) the birth of man from a
> > Superior Being, or what materialism would call a supernatural Being, though
> > it is only super-human — it is evident that our teachings have very few
> > chances of an impartial hearing. 
> > Add to it the claim that a portion of the Mankind in the Third Race — all
> > those Monads of men who had reached the highest point of Merit and Karma in
> > the preceding Manvantara — owed their psychic and rational natures to
> divine
>
>
> > Beings hypostasizing into their fifth principles, and the Secret Doctrine
> > must lose caste in the eyes of not only Materialism but even of dogmatic
> > Christianity. 
> > For, no sooner will the latter have learned that those angels are identical
> > with their "Fallen" Spirits, than the esoteric tenet will be proclaimed
> most
>
>
> > terribly heretical and pernicious.* 
> > The divine man dwelt in the animal, and, therefore, when the physiological
> > separation took place in the natural course of evolution — when also "all
> > the animal creation was untied," and males were attracted to females — that
> > race fell: not because they had eaten of the fruit of Knowledge and knew
> > good from evil, but because they knew no better. Propelled by the sexless
> > creative instinct, the early sub-races had evolved an intermediate race in
> > which, as hinted in the Stanzas, the higher Dhyan-Chohans had incarnated. †
>
>
> > "When we have ascertained the extent of the Universe and learnt to know all
> > that there is in it, we will multiply our race," answer the Sons of Will
> and
>
>
> > Yoga to their brethren of the same race, who invite them to do as they do.
> > This means that the great Adepts and Initiated ascetics will "multiply,"
> > i.e., once more produce Mind-born immaculate Sons — in the Seventh
> > Root-Race. " S D II 272 - 8
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links