Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00568)

8/22/2006 7:16 AM

		RE: Subject: Re:      Skandhas

Zakk -- as a preliminary let me take a liberty;

Please allow me to bring our talking into the forum as I think others who
know more than I do will have useful ideas to contribute to both of us ?



Dear Zakk:

I am sorry but because of my health, I cannot engage in a long debate on
various meanings.

To make things brief for me: I try to use key ideas and see if the words
used by various writers can agree with those key ideas.  I draw these "key
ideas" from THEOSOPHY .

Let's take the idea (see another post I made this day) 


1	WE LIVE IN A UNIVERSE THAT HAS AN ESSENTIAL MORAL COMPONENT.

2	EVERY "LIFE-ATOM" OR MONAD is a potential Mahatma --it takes
millions of years and many incarnations. But the MONADS are immortals. all
of them.  They are evolving together in a regular plan that takes them
through 7 great stages. [ see S D  I  157;  S D  II 596 ]

3	This very wise (almost omniscient) spiritual being [ATMA-BUDDHI]
resides in each "atom -- or MONAD " of the universe ( and that is entirely
crowded with these).

4	Every human being is endowed with an active ATMA-BUDDHI MONAD and it
contacts earthly affairs through the medium of our psycho-mental "SELF" --
our "Lower Manas," the "brain-mind" of this incarnation.  In doing this, the
Divine Innate Being may temporarily loose any concept of it real status. [ S
D II  167].  

During life our Karma serves as an educator and nudges us to perceive the
plan and laws of the Universe, and of itself, as it is a death-less
component thereof.  The next step in the progress of the MAN-MONAD is to
becoming a GREAT SOUL [ a MAHATMA ]

5	Karma is a universal, impersonal, wholly just and rigid LAW.  It
requires that all disturbances be readjusted to simplicity and honest
unselfish existence with the rest (high or low) .  It treats all MONADS as
brothers -- inasmuch as they all originate simultaneously when "Evolution"
reawakes the entire UNIVERSE to simultaneous, conscious activity,

6	WE, humans have reached as MONADS the stage of mind-consciousness
where our free will can choose to rectify the past, to unlearn when
necessary, and to install the active capacity of "right choice" and make it
operative in all our affairs, including thoughts, feelings and actions.

There  is no omnipotent GOD anywhere but internally to each of us.  No
prayers to an imaginary "outside or heavenly God" can operate.  No
consistency has ever been proved in this idea -- as a uniform law that
operates fairly for all.

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

Dal:
Now let us go to what we have written and see how much is in agreement with
these criteria. 

Best wishes,

Dallas

==========================
 

-----Original Message-----
From: zakk [mailto:seikar@adelphia.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:26 PM
To: dalval14@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Skandhas


>Your comments are of course interesting .>

HPB promoted and advised the sharing of individual
thought, insight, and experiences. It is a good method
of preventing dogmatism and she did not wish the
material she presented to become that.

>I would say that HPB's definitions made on behalf of the Masters of wisdom 
>represent THEOSOPHY >

 Many of the definitions were not hers or her masters'. Terms
were defined according to the line of thought that was
presented by the particular culture and teaching thereof.
They were simply repeated and sometimes given more
modern expressions for further insight.
 All the teachings represent theosophy. Theosophy is
a divine wisdom and does not belong to one group of
individuals or one line of thought and expression.
A child can speak a divine wisdon and it will represent
theosophy. To say one must speak and think in the terms
and definitions of one book, or presenting, is not seen to
be theosophy but the suffocation of it. Theosophy is not
viewed as a restriction of expression and thought, but
the opposite.  It is a divine wisdom of many expressions
with the divine freedom to express them.
 The individuals are countless who express theosophy.
It has been done in song through music. It has been
done through poetry. It occurs in daily conversations
throughout the world. Personages such as prophets,
wise men, sages, etc. are beyond counting.
 There exist many levels of understandings and sightfulness.
There exist many facets on the jewel called theosophy.
  Any organization that says "This is the only way, the only
truth" will break apart and fall.  The are many paths due to
there being many different expressions of truth and
divine wisdom.  Growth does not occur through stifling
and restrictions.

>The definitions you quote from various sources are translations
of ancient texts, but do not represent the actual words and
intentions of the original speakers / writers. >

The actual words and intentions of original speakers /
writers are with the original speakers / writers.
There is no dispute with this.  The meanings and understandings
one receives from another's words / writings are most
often based on one's experiences.  What is personally
presented in correspondences are perceptions and perspectives
based on this. Various experiences behold various perspectives.
Some perspectives are based upon the human mind perception,
some are not. There is no one, or two, or three perceptions
and perspectives that are entertained, but many.  A prefered
perspective is not always shared.  Perspectives can initiate thought
activity. This is one purpose of sharing. It is not to relate "a fact".
It is not to state that "this is a fact".  Stimulation of mind activity
and searching will be according to the individual. Direction
and / or acceptance of a line of thought will be determined
by personal discernment. These are seen as both the
enactment of brotherhood and living theosophy.

>I say this because
they have passed through many minds -- some sympathetic
and others not.>

Personal perspectives do not come from written material.
It is not a mode utilized.  Whether it be ancient texts or
recent does not matter. Whether it be claimed as "theosophy"
or not claimed as "theosophy" does not matter.
There is much emphasis placed by some on a "master
without" versus a "master within" ;  on recognizing
and seeking theosophy "from without" versus "within".
All known "masters" seem to share the concept that the
emphasis of direction lies within.

>So literalism cannot but ad more confusion.>

This applies to all written word, whether it be writings entitled
theosophy or not entitled theosophy.

>If you  wish to study THEOSOPHY then use the definitions of HPB.>

 This implies that only definings presented by HPB can be of
divine wisdom, even though she made many errors and had
experienced corrections because of her lack of understanding.
There are examples that are given in MLs.  This is not an issue
that would seem beneficial to discuss.
 There is no desire to study theosophy as you appear to define
it. The desire is the living of it. It is in the living of it that one
"knows and experiences it".  Book study entails intellectual
personal discernment.  A number of decades ago, the SD
was given to me.  Although I was not familiar with it at the time,
the purpose of the giving was to expound, and explain the
material, in present layman's terms and understandings.
This exercise was considered part of my "education".
Each individual has their own path to trod.  The path that
you may have in relation to theosophy and it's "study"
may not be the same path trod by all individuals.
 Brotherhood would not seem to entail telling another what
path they are take and how to do it,  but in accepting each
others' path, engaging in mutual sharing and communing.

>Is this being doctrinaire and fundamentalist?>

A reply could vary according to one's own discernment.

> It is not so intended,
but is intended to keep the comparisons on a single and not diverse tracks. 
 >

What is considered beneficial may vary according to
personal discernment.
This is another perception possible:
It is understanding on multiple levels that is seen as
optimal, not a single one. It is diversity that reveals
divine wisdom in it's wholeness, not a single
track.

>Can you show that THEOSOPHY  is wrong ?<

Theosophy is divine wisdom. It is the recognition
of it that has importance, not attempts at proving or
not proving written documents as being an expression
of it. It appears that there is a continuous limitation
placed on theosophy / divine wisdom to a paricular
writing on paper.  This is not personally done nor promoted.
Nor is it viewed as the expressing of divine
wisdom / theosophy.

  >I mean within the context of its presentation?>

There are thousands of writings that express theosophy.
Attempts at showing the rightness or trueness of each
would seem more optimal than attempts at showing
a wrongness.

>HPB shows time and again in her writings a consistency
between THEOSOPHY and all the ancient systems,
which the Masters teach are the source of them all in antiquity>

Divine wisdom lies within ancient systems, yes. This is
not disputed but quite agreed with. There seems to be
an omitance that divine wisdom also lies within modern
systems. Is this to be disregarded because HPB is not
physically here to show and express it?  To hold on to
old expressings without incorporating the new is to
stagnate. HPB wrote some comments on this very issue.