Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00268)

Dear Friends,
 
 
It would be funny, if it were not sad.  
 
A few people who style themselves as intimately acquainted with Theosophy were recently behaving in Theos-talk as if any ancient wisdom that is authentic should be entirely open to the public;  and as if it by keeping any part of its knowledge away from public opinion, such a tradition or group  should be seen as deserving the label of false, fake and egotistical. 
 
Of course, HPB’s work and the theosophical movement as conceived by her,  are not completely  and entirely subject to  public opinion, and would fall therefore under that same classification.  
 
These recent sages have both Mr. Solovyof and Mrs. Coulomb as their “bibliographical sources”, or rather as “possible sources”, as they enjoy being ambiguous and prefer not to clearly state that Solovyof and Madame Coulomb are reliable.   
 
>From this perspecdtive, the now living work of  HPB, which has  grown in experience  and wisdom since 1891, could be safely considered a fraud or, to make it more ambiguously suspicious,  “possibly fraudulent”.  
 
Thus, we have been discussing here whether the esoteric tradition has, after all,  the right to remain esoteric.  For some, it has the duty of getting immediately exoteric and submissive to public opinion, and this,  under the severe threat of being labelled as fraudulent.  
 
To the view of these self-styled experts,  I would like to oppose some enlightening words from a Mahatma, on the  “intrinsically secret”, or esoteric,  character of the divine wisdom. 
 
In fact, universal knowledge, or the workings of the  law of Karma and Constant Balance, cannot be divulged as easily as words and sentences can; and divulging the corresponding words would never be the same as divulging the real meaning.   Putting nuclear weapons in the hands of children, or putting all the wordings of divine wisdom for the public opinion to look at them, would do more harm than good. It would cause more confusion than enlightenment, and more noise,  than music. 
 
The Master says: 
 
“The Occult Science is not one, in which secrets can  be communicated of a sudden, by a written or even verbal communication.  If so, all the ‘Brothers’ should have to do, would be to publish a Hand-book of the art which might be taught in schools as grammar is.   It is the common mistake of people that we willingly wrap ourselves and our powers in mystery  – that we wish to keep our knowledge to ourselves, and of our own will refuse – ‘wantonly and deliberately’ to communicate it. The truth is that till the neophyte attains to the condition necessary  for that degree of Illumination  to which,  and for which, he is entitled and fitted, most  if not all of the Secrets are incommunicable.  The receptivity must be equal to the desire to instruct. The illumination must come from within.  Till then no hocus pocus of incantations, or mummery of appliances, no metaphysical lectures or discussions,  no self-imposed penance can give it.” (1) 
 
And I will add:  no superficial and mundane curiosity will be enough to make anyone know a iota of esoteric wisdom.   Our minds and hearts –  which depend on the quality of life in our physical bodies to act and see –  must become our own microscopes and telescopes, if we want to understand the inner and wider Life.  And this is no short term goal. 
 
Universal  wisdom can only be grasped through a kind of self-transformation which includes not only Ethics, but also Jnana Yoga or contemplation of universal truths;   Karma yoga or right action;  and Raja Yoga or self-knowledge and self-control; but, of course, all of this can be called simply Theosophy or Esoteric Philosophy, and  other names could be used as well.    
 
Then the “Secrets” will unveil themselves before us. 
 
And when they do, we will see that they were all the time just in front of us, patiently staring at us and waiting for the time of our awakening. 
 
 
Best regards,   Carlos. 
 
 
 
NOTE: 
 
(1) “The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett”, TUP, Pasadena, CA, USA, 1992, 494 pp., see  Letter XLIX, pp. 282-283.  In the Chronological Edition (TPH Philippines),  this is  Letter 20, see pp. 72-73. 
 
 
ooooooooooooo 
 
 


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