Theos-Talk Archives (November 2008 Message tt00214)

Anand,

I thank you for your reply.  I see that you raise a good number of 
points which will take much time to go over unless we simply treat 
all of this in a superficial mannner.

I will just try at this stage to briefly reply to some of your 
points.  

I really am starting to think that you just don't understand the 
basic ideas presented by KH.  I am not saying whether these basic 
ideas are true or false.  I just get the impression that you have all 
these "a prior" ideas which confuse you.

I am reminded of what KH once said to Mr. Hume:

---------------------------------------------------------------
I tell you plainly you are unfit to learn, for your mind is too full 
and there is not a corner vacant from whence a previous occupant 
would not arise, to struggle with and drive away the newcomer. 
Therefore I do not evade, I only give you time to reflect and deduce 
and first learn well what was already given you before you seize on 
something else. 
----------------------------------------------------------------

Whether that would apply to you or not, I leave for you and others to 
decide.

Now turning to some of your comments.

You write:

------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think meaning of this statement is what you gave.
"If people are willing to accept and to regard
as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may
do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer."
------------------------------------------------------------

Well without more detail I cannot say what you are actually referring 
to.

I simply stated that KH indeed teaches of the ONE LIFE and gave 
examples from several places in his letter where he clearly is 
speaking time and time again about the ONE LIFE.

Then you write:

---------------------------------------------------------
Below statements says One Life has properties of matter. That sounds
plainly wrong....It is not clear why Life is condemned in this letter 
and matter is praised. Read below statement....Again here it is not 
clear why matter is made supreme. Read statement below....Again 
statement below is opposite of what spiritual classics teach.
Idea of pure Existence is called absurdity....
----------------------------------------------------------

And with each of these statements you give a quote from the Mahatma 
letters.

But Anand, do you understand what KH is referring to when he writes 
of "matter".  And what is "life" and "pure existence"?

>From your comments, it appears that you may not really understand the 
underlying ideas being expressed by KH.  Am I wrong?

Here is what KH says in another letter about "matter" and "spirit".  
I would suggest that you carefully read and also study this quote and 
see if you can understand the "idea" behind these words.  I am not 
asking you to accept or for that matter to reject the statement.  
Just try to understand it and also ask yourself:  could I have 
preconceptions or even misconceptions that are leading me astray and 
are confusing me???

Here is what KH wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nor did I ever become guilty of the heresy I am accused of -- in 
reference to spirit and matter. The conception of matter and spirit 
as ENTIRELY DISTINCT, and both eternal could certainly never have 
entered my head, however little I may know of them, for it is one of 
the elementary and fundamental doctrines of Occultism that THE TWO 
ARE ONE and are DISTINCT BUT IN their respective manifestations, and 
only in the limited perceptions of the world of senses. Far 
from "lacking philosophical breadth" then, our doctrines show, but 
ONE principle in nature, -- SPIRIT-MATTER or MATTER-SPIRIT, the third 
the ultimate Absolute or the quintessence of the two, -- if I may be 
allowed to use an erroneous term in the present application -- losing 
itself beyond the view and spiritual perceptions of even the "Gods" 
or Planetary Spirits. This third principle say the Vedantic 
Philosophers -- is the only reality, everything else being Maya, as 
NONE of the Protean manifestations of spirit-matter or Purusha and 
Prakriti have ever been regarded in any other light than that of 
TEMPORARY DELUSIONS of the senses. Even in the hardly outlined 
philosophy of Isis this idea is clearly carried out. In the book of 
Kiu-te, Spirit is called the ultimate sublimation of matter, and 
matter the crystallization of spirit. And no better illustration 
could be afforded than in the very simple phenomenon of ice, water, 
vapour and the final dispersion of the latter, the phenomenon being 
reversed in its consecutive manifestations and called the Spirit 
failing into generation or matter. This trinity resolving itself into 
unity, -- a doctrine as old as the world of thought -- was seized 
upon by some early Christians, who had it in the schools of 
Alexandria, and made up into the Father, or generative spirit; the 
Son or matter, -- man; and into the Holy Ghost, the immaterial 
essence, or the apex of the equilateral triangle, an idea found to 
this day in the pyramids of Egypt. Thus once more it is proved that 
you misunderstand my meaning entirely, whenever for the sake of 
brevity I use a phraseology habitual with the Western 
people....matter per se is indestructible, and as I maintain coeval 
with spirit -- that spirit which we know and can conceive of. 
Bereaved of Prakriti, Purusha (Spirit) is unable to manifest itself, 
hence ceases to exist -- becomes nihil. Without spirit or Force, even 
that which Science styles as "not living" matter, the so-called 
mineral ingredients which feed plants, could never have been called 
into form. There is a moment in the existence of every molecule and 
atom of matter when, for one cause or another, the last spark of 
spirit or motion or life (call it by whatever name) is withdrawn, and 
in the same instant with the swiftness which surpasses that of the 
lightning glance of thought the atom or molecule or an aggregation of 
molecules is annihilated to return to its pristine purity of intra-
cosmic matter. It is drawn to the mother fount with the velocity of a 
globule of quicksilver to the central mass. Matter, force, and motion 
are the trinity of physical objective nature, as the trinitarian 
unity of spirit-matter is that of the spiritual or subjective nature. 
Motion is eternal because spirit is eternal. But no modes of motion 
can ever be conceived unless they be in connection with matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------

caps added.

Think of "matter" and "spirit" as the two poles of "existence".  
Neither can "exist" in isolation.  

"Spirit" cannot "exist" without "matter".

Anand, I have no idea what you mean by "spirit" or "matter".  You 
will have to define how you use and understand these terms.

But in the Mahatmas' philosophy, they cannot exist without each other.

This is gone over in great detail ALSO in various places in HPB's 
writings.  See THE SECRET DOCTRINE.  

I give one quote from the SD which gives even more elucidation:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Parabrahm (the One Reality, the Absolute) is the field of Absolute 
Consciousness, i.e., that Essence which is out of all relation to 
conditioned existence, and of which conscious existence is a 
conditioned symbol. But once that we pass in thought from this (to 
us) Absolute Negation, duality supervenes in the contrast of Spirit 
(or consciousness) and Matter, Subject and Object.

Spirit (or Consciousness) and Matter are, however, to be regarded, 
not as independent realities, but as the two facets or aspects of the 
Absolute (Parabrahm), which constitute the basis of conditioned Being 
whether subjective or objective.

Considering this metaphysical triad as the Root from which proceeds 
all manifestation, the great Breath assumes the character of 
precosmic Ideation. It is the fons et origo of force and of all 
individual consciousness, and supplies the guiding intelligence in 
the vast scheme of cosmic Evolution. On the other hand, precosmic 
root-substance (Mulaprakriti) is that aspect of the Absolute which 
underlies all the objective planes of Nature.

Just as pre-Cosmic Ideation is the root of all individual 
consciousness, so pre-Cosmic Substance is the substratum of matter in 
the various grades of its differentiation.

Hence it will be apparent that the contrast of these two aspects of 
the Absolute is essential to the existence of the "Manifested 
Universe." Apart from Cosmic Substance, Cosmic Ideation could not 
manifest as individual consciousness, since it is only through a 
vehicle of matter that consciousness wells up as "I am I," a physical 
basis being necessary to focus a ray of the Universal Mind at a 
certain stage of complexity. Again, apart from Cosmic Ideation, 
Cosmic Substance would remain an empty abstraction, and no emergence 
of consciousness could ensue.

The "Manifested Universe," therefore, is pervaded by duality, which 
is, as it were, the very essence of its ex-istence as "manifestation."
--------------------------------------------------------------
SD, Vol. I, page 15, original ed.

This quote from the SD helps one to understand all the quotes you 
gave and that I gave from the Mahatma Letters.

As far as I can tell, they give a coherent and consistent teaching.

And if you disagree with this teaching, fine and good but you will 
need to tell us why you disagree and show us that your "version" is 
more coherent and consistent.

Moving on.

As to your quotes about religion and evil from the Mahatma Letters, 
that would take another whole posting or even several to go over 
point by point.

I will be more than happy to do that but I ask we attend to one point 
at a time.

In the meantime, I will just make a few general comments on some of 
your own statements.

You write:

----------------------------------------------------
Read below statment and you will find that it is neither supported by
scientists nor spiritualist. It is unbelievable invention. Accepted
chelas like CWL, AB, SR never said such a thing happens....Another 
unbelievable statement from ML 10 is below. According to chelas, 
theist philosophies and religions were given by Great Ones from White 
Brotherhood. Did they mislead humanity by creating idea of
God. And what about millions of people who fear to do sin because they
fear God? What about millions of people who do good works in order to
please their God ?...Read below. If this is so, why accepted chelas 
of Masters built Christian church, a Hindu temple in Adyar campus ? 
And why does TS tell that people should live religions and should not 
leave religions ? And why then Theosophy called source of all 
religions, most of them are theist ?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well there are many tenets of Theosophy that are not supported by 
most scientists.  

Does the scientific community accept the existence of even 
telepathy?  Last time I checked the scientific community pooh poohs 
psychic phenomena.  etc. etc.   

So an appeal to scientists is a double edged sword.

Or take your appeal to chelas:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Accepted chelas like CWL, AB, SR never said such a thing happens.....
According to chelas....If this is so, why [do] accepted chelas of 
Masters..... [etc. etc.]
------------------------------------------------------------------

But Anand, are you sure you have chosen the "right" chelas to rely 
on?  There are many individuals who have claimed to be "chelas" of 
HPB's Masters.  

Besides the names you give, there are also William Q. Judge, 
Katherine Tingley, G. de Purucker, Alice Bailey, Francia A. La Due, 
Guy Ballard, Helena Roerich, Mark Prophet, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, 
Earlyne Chaney, Nada-Yolanda, Max Heindel, Brother Philip, Cyril 
Scott, David Anrias, Flower Newhouse and many others.....

They claim TOO that they were chelas.  And some of them also give out 
teachings SIMILAR IF NOT IDENTICAL to what is found in the Mahatma 
Letters.

Why should we not believe these chelas instead of the ones you have 
selected?

You may have selected the WRONG chelas?  :)

For example, G. de Purucker claimed to be a chela of the Masters and 
he gave out many similar teachings as to be found in the Masters' 
letters.  So one could say his teachings support the truth of the 
Mahatma Letters.  

Now I am not saying he is right and those you have decided to accept 
are wrong.  I am simply pointing out that you might be wrong about 
who you think are chelas of the Masters.  And therefore your reliance 
of what THESE chelas teach may be brought into question.

Another example.  A member of Theos-Talk, Frank R., REJECTS your 
chelas, and instead accepts Judge, Tingley and Purucker.  You may say 
Frank doesn't know what he is talking about but IF he can be wrong, 
so can you Anand.

And my impression is that Judge's, Tingley's and Purucker's teachings 
are more consistent with and actually "confirm" the teachings in the 
Mahatma Letters.  Therefore we could quote these chelas to confirm 
and support the Mahatma Letters.

What am I getting at?

You have made assumptions.  A good number of them.  And some of these 
assumptions are piled one upon the other.  Maybe all of these 
assumptions of yours are wrong or at least some of them may be 
wrong.  Have you considered that?  Now I am not saying that I have a 
pipeline to the "truth" and you don't.  In fact, maybe neither one of 
us really know what we are talking about.  

But when you say certain statements in the Mahatma Letters are 
an "unbelievable invention" or they are "absurdities", and we find 
that apparently you are making this judgment [at least in part} based 
on what some LATER CHELA claimed or taught, we might stop and 
consider some of the points and questions I have raised above. 

All I know is that the philosophy and the particular teachings we 
have been discussing as found in the Mahatma Letters as well as the 
Secret Doctrine seem coherent and consistent and understandable when 
carefully studied and one can find support for these ideas in the 
views of some religionists, some philosophers, some scientists and 
even some "chelas"!  Now whether any of this means therefore that the 
views given in the Mahatma Letters are ultimately true or not is up 
for debate but that also goes for your "take" on all of this too.

And I will add here that there is alot of good relevant material that 
one can study that helps one to understand KH's views on "God" and 
related matters.  Mr. Osborn's THE COSMIC WOMB is one recommended 
source.  Virginia Hanson, the co-editor of THE READERS GUIDE TO THE 
MAHATMA LETTERS, has written several articles that provide a great 
deal of additional information and insight.  Another volume by John 
Hick gives additional information, etc.  I suppose I should make a 
list of such additional sources that might be helpful to the serious 
student of the Mahatma Letters.  As time permits I will do that and 
post it on my website.

Anand, I will be more than happy to discuss any of these points or 
any of the additional points you made.  All I ask is that we take one 
point at a time and deal with it before we hurry on to a 2nd point or 
a 3rd point or a 4th point, etc.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc