Re: Theos-World RE: Proof of Adepts† † † Value of Theosophy
Oct 02, 2005 05:46 PM
HPB, with the direct help of the Masters, wrote the Secret Doctrine with a
specific teaching/learning method in mind. That is, so that the esoteric
teachings could be absorbed, and consequently more fully understood,
simultaneously, through one's visual as well as aural senses and their associated and
interrelated mental thought processes.
One effective method for this form of comprehension is to directly read or
chant the Doctrine aloud with proper inflection. Such emphasis could only be
applied through normal printing techniques at the time by using certain
calculated typographical modifications -- such as large and small caps, italics,
quotes, asterisks, daggers, dashes, commas, colons, semi colons, bullets,
exclamation points, and other varied typographic symbols and inflectional markings,
While some later reprints were made in all sincerity, the authors may not
have been aware of these techniques or their purposes, and thus, inadvertently
changed the meanings of HPB's sentences by ignoring and eliminating these
typographic notations. Consequently, some later non Adept editors of reprint
editions of the SD may have, either purposely or otherwise, seriously distorted much
of the teachings' deeper esoteric meanings.
Thus, the advice given to depend only on the original teachings as given out
in the original and facsimile editions -- directly edited by HPB (and the
Masters) themselves -- is well taken... And its method of study by simultaneous
aural and visual means should be observed by all serious students of true
theosophy -- rather than rely on dead letter interpretations of later edited and
more or less inaccurate or distorted versions.
I hope this information fully verifies Dallas' advice to stick with the
original teachings -- as well as be of use to serious students for purposesof
proper study of true theosophy.
(Just out of the hospital for the second time in the past five months aftera
serious auto accident in South Florida while recuperating from Legionaire's
disease. Much karma to think about, but grateful to still be alive and with
all my faculties i
In a message dated 10/2/05 5:44:33 PM, email@example.com writes:
> 10/2/2005 12:48 PM
> ¬† ¬† RE: Proof of Adepts¬† ¬† ¬† Value of Theosophy
> Dear Gerry:
> While this may sound extreme¬† (as claim or statement), yet it carries the
> sense in which I write of the value of THEOSOPHY. And of the reason for
> respect of the MASTERS OF WISDOM.
> You may have noted how in the MAHATMA LETTERS [ pp.¬† 33, 43 (Barker Edn.)] ,
> the great respect they offer to the Buddha, calling Him their Patron.
> Hence the value of making strictly available to all students, new or old of
> the "ORIGINAL TEACHINGS."¬†
> I have mop objections to comments being made on those teachings IF SO
> LABELED. [ I mean advising clearly IN ADVANCE that editorial changes have
> been introduced, and where and why so done.]
> I object when I discover that changes have been introduced in so-called
> reproductions of the "original¬† Teachings."¬† The first of such
> NON-ADVERTISED changes, was the reprint, in 1893 of the SECRET DOCTRINE.
> Both Adyar and Pasadena THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY s have done this in the past,
> and both have eventually returned to printing the ORIGINAL again.
> Here is another reason:
> ‚ÄúWISDOM RELIGION. ¬† ¬† The one religion which underlies all the
> now-existing creeds.
> That ‚Äúfaith‚ÄĚ which, being primordial, and revealed directly to human kind
> their progenitors and informing EGOS (though the Church regards them as the
> ‚Äúfallen angels‚ÄĚ), required no ‚Äúgrace‚ÄĚ, nor blind faith to believe, for it
> was knowledge. (See ‚ÄúGupta Vidy√Ę‚ÄĚ, Hidden Knowledge.)
> It is on this Wisdom Religion that Theosophy is based.‚ÄĚ
> ¬† ¬†¬† T¬† Glos¬† 371-2
> This does not preclude the WISDOM of Buddhism, Hinduism, Brahmanism, etc.,
> which all can be traced back to the ORIGINAL Wisdom Religion -- the SANATANA
> DHAMMO¬† (DHARMA) of antiquity.
> Our modern exposition by HPB of the Masters' Message is a continuation of
> the same ancient teachings.
> Comparison produces and assures us of such verification.
> Best wishes,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 12:59 PM
> To: Theosophy Study List
> Subject: Proof of Adepts
> ZD¬† ¬† ¬†¬† The existence of Adepts can not be proven unless an Adept desires
> it to be so. Since Theosophists can not prove and demonstate such as actual
> FACT, does it mean it is not to be respected?¬†
> DTB: Many other examples of that in which can not be demonstated as actual
> FACT can be presented. I would appreciate an expounding of what is meant by
> the above statement.¬†
> An Adept is one who realizes the I-Not-I Monad and that the entire universe
> is an expression of this monad. Such a one can consciously make changes in
> his own Not-I or world. But so long as we are embodied, we share our worlds
> with others, and so making changes in one world always has karmic effects
> in the monadic world's of others who share it. Each Adept has a choice.
> They can deliberately avoid making any significant changes and let karmic
> forces run themselves out, as Ramakrishna did at the end of the 18th
> century, or they can make changes and thus reveal themselves to others, as
> many do. Those who remain in the background, making no significant changes,
> often go through life unknown and unnoticed. Those who choose to make
> changes and reveal themselves to others must pay the karmic price for doing
> so, as HPB's Adepts, and many others, have done.
> DTB¬† ¬†¬† I see as methods of proof:¬†
> ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† (1)¬† testimony¬† [ found in numerous accounts of personal witnesses ]
> ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† (2)¬† coherence of information offered to be considered ‚Äď in content,
> logic, support from other reliable sources.
> ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† (3)¬† lack of any enforcement, or any promises of securing personal
> preference or powers.
> Eye-witness testimony is usually unreliable, but sometimes it is all we
> have. Information, exoteric knowledge such as the original writings, does
> not validate Adepts, and could have been written by a non-Adept who was
> highly intelligent and had access to libraries. The information contained
> in the original writings is about as consistent as the Bible or Koran. In
> short, there are conflicts when we make literal interpretations. Failure to
> promise rewards is itself no guarantee of Adepts. If these three methods of
> "proof" were valid, then everyone today would believe in Adepts. Adepts
> generally are not¬† interested in proving themselves to non-believers. They
> do, however, have an interest in helping those who are ready to see them
> for what they are.
> Personally, I believe in them because because I can see no reasonable
> alternative in light of my experiences.
> Jerry S.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application