Theos-Talk Archives (September 2005 Message tt00212)

9/18/2005 3:00 AM

Dear M:

It's a question of inner research.  

We either are or are not. (IMMORTALS -- and we use continually changing
bodies)

Gerry also says today we are not. But, as I maintain, he always says that
from the standpoint of one who is UNAFFECTED BY CHANGE -- i.e.: an
IMMORTAL. 

Buddhism has several schools of thought and doctrine. Mahayana teaches the
immortality of the spiritual self in man. Hinayana does not. [ HPB
discusses this (as you who have read The KEY TO THEOSOPHY, pp. 77-79,
104-5, will remember. ]

So pick your choice! Ask yourself what makes sense. 

I have said before (I think) you ought to set out two or three comparative
columns of


I KNOW I WANT TO KNOW I AM UNCERTAIN OF	QUESTIONS
=========	================	=================	==========




(make your entries brief)



And as time passes, keep track of the answers or changes you might make
there.  

Should be interesting.

If you' insist on "speculating," then each time, why not establish your
BASIS for that particular speculation? See if they make coherent, logical
sense when taken all together or not. How else will you know how your mind
alters and changes. Is it for better or worse?

Look at the following:

---------------------------------

The tendency among men to accept words and names as realities is
unfortunately all too common. An article in a publication issued by one of
the theosophical organizations propounds the question "Theosophy or
Orthodoxy; Which?"-evidently presenting to its readers the necessity for a
choice between them.

A moment's thought should have shown that Orthodoxy has no existence of
itself, but can only be considered in relation to some formulated system of
thought, and that the title in question presents an impossible situation.

This would be a small matter and could have been passed over without notice
if the same unfortunate tendency had not been applied to a field of thought
where correctness of understanding is vital. For, if Theosophy is taken to
be something of an abstraction, or a simple point of beginning from which a
system is to be developed by individual research, the whole idea of Masters
as the custodians of the accumulated wisdom of the ages [S D I 172-3] and
Their Message to the world of men, has to be abandoned. This is practically
the position taken in the article in question; for, while there are
occasional references to both Messenger and Message, these seem to be used
as names and not as realities.

The question therefore which every student should put before himself for
solution is neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy, but- 

"Did anyone present to the world a formulated system of philosophy, religion
and science? 

Did that personage give a name to the system? 

Who was that personage?" 

The answer cannot be obtained by consulting the opinions of any person or
persons whatever; they are questions of fact, and facts alone can answer.

Every student worthy of the name knows that H. P. Blavatsky gave a body of
knowledge to the world; that She named what She gave "Theosophy" and that
She explicitly declared it to be from the Masters of Wisdom.

In justice to the Message, to the Messenger who brought it and to the ideal
of Masters, nothing should be named Theosophy but this Message. Whoever
takes any other position violates the first laws of occultism by belittling
both Message and Messenger, and cannot expect to benefit by them. Those who
accept the Message and belittle the Messenger, are equally unfortunate, for
in belittling one, they belittle both. To these it should be said that it is
folly to imagine that the Masters of Wisdom did not know enough to select a
Messenger who would deliver Their Message correctly and in its entirety. The
Masters' wisdom being questioned, the whole edifice falls to the ground.

The materials of which that building was composed may of course be put to
use by those who desire to erect structures according to their own ideas,
and sad to say, this is exactly what has occurred among the various
theosophical organizations; each has taken more or less of the material
supplied by the Message of Theosophy, has built an edifice according to
ideas of its own, and has labeled its structure "theosophical." Each
building so constructed differs from every other.

Yet-here was a building known as "Theosophy," complete in design and
structure; each separate component part accurately adjusted to every other
part and to the whole.

The mystery of it all is that these latter-day constructors should recognize
the beauty and symmetry of the portions selected by them, and fail to
perceive that there was a perfect building, an Architect and a plan. It is
the old story over again: "They have divided his raiment among them and for
his vesture have cast lots." 

The failure to accept the teaching as given and to revere the ones whose
sacrifice made that presentation possible is at the root of every past
failure. The responsibility for every failure rests with those who
interposed themselves between the Message and those who would learn. 

The woe of the world has been intensified by such as these, and surely a
fearful responsibility is theirs. It is no small thing to obstruct the work
of the Lodge of Masters, hence every student, be he prominent among his
fellow-men or not, should take heed lest he fall and in falling drag down
thousands with him. 

There is but one safe course. Theosophy must be understood to be a gift to
mankind by more progressed beings than ourselves. We must learn, and a the
fundamental principles which underlie that grand philosophy, and understand
the operation of law as disclosed therein. Then, and then only can we begin
to 
make Theosophy a living power in our lives. We should preserve a willingness
to give and receive instruction, but we should in either case be sure that
such instruction is in exact accord with the principles and laws set forth
in the Theosophic philosophy.

If each student did this, all would have one aim, one purpose, one teaching,
and a sure basis for united effort. Such differences of individual opinion
as might arise would be solved by a careful adjustment of these to the
philosophy. 

Thus all would be united; all preserve the utmost freedom of thought; all
progress most rapidly by self-induced and self-devised efforts. No one,
then, would make the fatal blunder of imagining that Theosophy is something
which can be developed, but each would devote his thought and effort to
growth along the lines that Theosophy indicates, so that he may become the
better able to help and to teach others. 

If there are Masters, and They have delivered a Message to us, that Message
is Their Orthodoxy-or right understanding; this should be preferred to that
of all others, however highly such may esteem themselves or be esteemed by
their fellow-men.

---------------------------------

I rather like the attitude expressed there

Best wishes, always,.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:41 PM
To: 
Subject: RE: Calm Abiding and Special insight .


D	If we were convinced we are IMMORTALS, and that all other humans are
so likewise, then we could not afford to treat them carelessly.

Dallas, I wonder if you might be saying that your notions about
"IMMORTALITY" might have a direct bearing on how you treat people.

Speculatively,

Mauri