Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00013)

Sept 2, 2006
Dear friends and Mark,

BROTHERHOOD is a term used for EXTENDED FAMILY.  If my son makes a mistake or holds to an erroneous idea, do I throw him out of the family?  Do I throw him out of my heart?  Do I value him any less?  Can I agree to disagee with any person of my family and still keep them in my heart?  What does Keeping them within in my heart mean?

The same may be asked about our attitude (our thoughts and feelings), about fellow students (disciples and chelas), and even about humanity at large.  We are not all at the same exact place or stage of development, and therefore will not all agree on what is true for all of us.  Theosophy at least gets us in the same books, even if not the same page or identical idea.

Each of may make some sweeping grand statements that later on we may have to retract, or correct, or see error or see imperfection in them.  The same may be said about our actions.  May each of us acknowledge our right to disagree and our disagreement without throwing a brother and sister out of our heart!

Sometimes we may disagree about so profound or large an issue that the only recourse left to us is to leave the other person(s) to their KARMA.  That also is COMPASSION.

May I be so bold as to recommend that you study once again as I also have needed to do and still do, the three FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS.
May I submit that:
The first one asks WHAT are we and this cosmos?
The second one asks HOW does the WHAT function?
The third one asks WHAT FOR?

May I also submit for your consideration that we each already have access to the adepts.  Where and how?  Right in front of us, in the writings !!!

Best regards,
Gary B. 
 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Jaqua 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 9:30 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Visualization


  Re: Visualizaing masters

  Dan says: "Think about it!"

  - I Have thought about it. It didn't 
  seem right and made me a little ill 
  the first time I saw it, and still 
  does. There is a lot of esoteric 
  material throughout Blavatsky's and 
  the MLs, and I doubt there is anything 
  else SPECIFICALLY about visualization 
  as a spiritual practice (beyond what 
  is needed in mental work in general.) 
  Those quotes you used about the 
  "minds eye," etc. are not specific. 
  Visualization over time probably 
  makes elementals, like the example 
  in David-Neel's "Mystery and Magic 
  in Tibet" where it resulted in a 
  tulpa or plaguing spook. If it was 
  an important practice it would be 
  refered to SPECIFICALLY in more 
  than one place. Repeated practice 
  of this visualization would likely 
  create an elemental. I think 
  "the Path" is largely to develop 
  self-reliance as much as possible 
  on One's Own inner self (not a 
  visualization) - the same spiritual 
  source the adepts have. Utimately, 
  you can ONLY rely on one's own 
  determinations about incongruous 
  written material, as no one has 
  direct access to real adepts.

  - The ES Instruction with the 
  visualization comment in it was 
  issued AFTER HPB's death.

  Things do "slip in" and slip by, 
  especially with someone who was under 
  the pressures that Judge was. I 
  assume this paragraph is in the 
  facsimile in your THE ESOTERIC PAPERS 
  OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. (pages 599-622.) 
  Was this instruction "recalled" ? 
  Someone sent me a copy of the original 
  mimeograph of Garrangues "Point Out 
  the Way," and I swear the typist 
  inserted some phoney stuff in it 
  in a few places, as out of character 
  with the rest of the book. 

  Regardless, even if it is 
  something that did not slip by, and 
  Judge consciously and purposively 
  put it in the instruction, I - for 
  myself - do not agree with or accept 
  it as written, and I don't care if 
  Judge wrote it or not. I've got 
  that right I think??? I can't think 
  of any Blavatsky or Mahatma material 
  that strikes me as "wrong" as this 
  does. I get the same reaction from 
  a few other of Judge's remarks - 
  like that "you should never throw 
  anyone out of your heart", which I 
  think he got carried away on and 
  is "wrong" too. He was a chela 
  working on his own. Who knows if 
  everything was "corrected" by an 
  adept or higher chela or not? 
  We're already in a world of illusion, 
  why create more illusions by visualization. 
  People can take this one statement 
  on visualization (if not phoney) and 
  extend it into an endorsement of 
  visualization practices in general, 
  which finds no support in the literature.

  I also still think that Judge's 
  private diary should not be given 
  the weight that it is. One might 
  put anything in a private notebook, 
  passing notions or experiments one 
  has discarded, etc. 
  - jake j.

  ----------
  <9. Jake on Visualization, Judge's Diary & the Mahatma Letters
  <Posted by: "danielhcaldwell" danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com 
  danielhcaldwell
  Date: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:14 am (PDT)
  <Jake,
  <You write:
  =======================================================
  <Thanks to Daniel for the information - source
  of quote BCW XII, p. 696. I still think it is a wrong
  <practice, or not explained sufficiently, and dangerous.
  If it didn't "just slip by Judge," I think Judge is wrong.
  <Is a facsimile of the original instruction online? I
  don't like the idea of visualizing in general. When
  we are in a world of illusion, why create more illusion?
  <'Also think it is a big mistake to put too much weight
  on Judge's or anybody's personal diary. Who knows
  <what anything might mean, they are just notes to
  oneself, or keys of things to think about.
  =======================================================
  <Concerning your comment that 
  <"If it didn't 'just slip by Judge,'..."
  and 
  <"Also think it is a big mistake to put too much weight
  <on Judge's or anybody's personal diary. Who knows
  what anything might mean, they are just notes to
  <oneself, or keys of things to think about."
  <Think about it....
  <(1) Judge saw fit to transcribe in his 1888 diary these
  quotes from KH.
  Then....
  <(2) in E.S. Instruction V published several years later, 
  Judge decides to add these quotes FOR ALL esoteric members to read
  and study.
  <How can one reasonably entertain the idea that the quotes
  may have "JUST slip by Judge" into this instruction?
  <I would suggest that he make a conscious
  decision to add the quotes or they would not have
  appeared in this instruction.
  <(3) Furthermore, starting in 1889 and 1890 Julia Keightley,
  a trusted associate of Judge, starts quoting and
  <paraphrasing this SAME KH material in the pages
  of THE PATH. Keep in mind that THE PATH was for the
  <PUBLIC and that Judge was the editor. Surely one can
  conclude that it was NO accident or NO "slip" that lead
  to the public publication of some of this material in THE PATH.
  <(4) Plus there are indications that this material from
  KH was distributed to other members of the E.S. DURING
  HPB's lifetime.
  <Surely Judge and HPB were aware of what was published in THE PATH
  or given to members of the ES.
  <And both Alice Cleather (member of HPB's Inner Group)and Basil Crump 
  <quote some of this material indicating that they knew of the 
  existence of this KH material.
  etc.
  <So the situation is much more than simply finding supposed
  KH quotes in Judge's personal private diary.
  <And since this discussion brings up the issue of "phoney"
  Mahatma letters, one might consider what HPB herself wrote
  in Oct. 1888:
  ==========================================================
  <...We have been asked by a correspondent why he should not "be free 
  <to suspect some of the so-called 'precipitated' letters as being 
  <forgeries," giving as his reason for it that while some of them bear 
  <the stamp of (to him) undeniable genuineness, others seem from their 
  <contents and style, to be imitations. This is equivalent to <saying 
  that he has such an unerring spiritual insight as to be able to 
  <detect the false from the true, though he has never met a Master, 
  <nor been given any key by which to test his alleged communications. 
  <The inevitable consequence of applying his untrained judgment in 
  <such cases, would be to make him as likely as not to declare false 
  <what was genuine, and genuine what was false. Thus what criterion 
  <has any one to decide between one "precipitated" letter, or another 
  <such letter? Who except their authors, or those whom they employ as 
  <their amanuenses (the chelas and disciples), can tell? For it is 
  <hardly one out of a hundred "occult" letters that is ever written by 
  <the hand of the Master, in whose name and on whose behalf they are 
  <sent, as the Masters have neither need nor leisure to write them; 
  <and that when a Master says, "I wrote that letter," it means only 
  <that every word in it was dictated by him and impressed under his 
  <direct supervision. Generally they make their chela, whether near or 
  <far away, write (or precipitate) them, by impressing upon his mind 
  <the ideas they wish expressed, and if necessary aiding him in the 
  <picture-printing process of precipitation. It depends entirely upon 
  <the chela's state of development, how accurately the ideas may be 
  <transmitted and the writing-model imitated. Thus the non-adept 
  recipient is left in the dilemma of uncertainty, whether, if one 
  <letter is false, all may not be; for, as far as intrinsic evidence 
  <goes, all come from the same source, and an are brought by the same 
  <mysterious means. But there is another, and a far worse condition 
  <implied. For all that the recipient of "occult" letters can possibly 
  <know, and on the simple grounds of probability and common honesty, 
  <the unseen correspondent who would tolerate one single fraudulent 
  <line in his name, would wink at an unlimited repetition of the 
  deception. And this leads directly to the following. All the so-
  <called occult letters being supported by identical proofs, they <have 
  all to stand or fall together. If one is to be doubted, then all 
  <have, and the series of letters in the "Occult World," "Esoteric 
  <Buddhism," etc., etc., may be, and there is no reason why they 
  <should not be in such a case-frauds, "clever impostures," 
  and "forgeries," such as the ingenuous though stupid agent of 
  <the "S.P.R." has made them out to be, in order to raise in the 
  public estimation the "scientific" acumen and standard of 
  <his "Principals."
  ==============================================================
  <So if one might consider the material under consideration
  as "phoney" (your term) then one might also consider Olcott's
  <view on the Prayag Mahatma Letter (Letter #134 in the first three 
  <editions of the Mahatma Letters). Apparently Olcott believed
  this letter was "phoney" and did NOT originate from the Mahatma.
  <It would appear Olcott could NOT believe that the Mahatma could have
  <written what was in Letter #134. Is this SIMILAR to your contention
  <that Mahatma KH could NOT have possibly written about visualizing 
  <the Master within???
  Food for thought...
  <Daniel
  ---------------




  ---------------------------------
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]