Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00456)

Dear friends and Govert



My views are:


1.
About Idries Shah's list.
There is no exact copy given by HPB. But somewhere in the Secret Doctrine, we have HPB quoting Ralston Skinner in his  "The Hebrew-Egyptian Mystery and the Source of Measures"about the Mystery Language on a view quite similar to the list or even expanding on it.

Ralston Skinner said:
  "The peculiarity of this language was that it could be contained in another, concealed and not to be perceived, save through the help of special instruction; letters and syllabic signs possessing at the same time the powers or meaning of numbers, of geometrical shapes, pictures, or ideographs and symbols, the designed scope of which would be determinatively helped out by parables in the shape of narratives or parts of narratives; while also it could be set forth separately, independently, and variously, by pictures, in stone work, or in earth construction."
 "To clear up an ambiguity as to the term language: Primarily the word means the expression of ideas by human speech; but, secondarily, it may mean the expression of ideas by any other instrumentality. This old language is so composed in the Hebrew text, that by the use of the written characters, which will be the language first defined, a distinctly separated series of ideas may be intentionally communicated, other than those ideas expressed by the reading of the sound signs. 

>>> A short comment: So, that for instance only those reading the Akasa at the same time could understand the views given - then only so on THEIR level of consciousness. - And some theosophists add as I do, that the Arab/Chaldean language and Sanskrit are far more devleoped than the Hebrew in this regard.<<<

Ralston Skinner continues:
"This secondary language sets forth, under a veil, series of ideas, copies in imagination of things sensible, which may be pictured, and of things which may be classed as real without being sensible; as, for instance, the number 9 may be taken as a reality, though it has no sensible existence, so also a revolution of the moon, as separate from the moon itself by which that revolution has been made, may be taken as giving rise to, or causing a real idea, though such a revolution has no substance. This idea-language may consist of symbols restricted to arbitrary terms and signs, having a very limited range of conceptions, and quite valueless, or it may be a reading of nature in some of her manifestations of a value almost immeasurable, as regards human civilization. A picture of something natural may give rise to ideas of co-ordina-tive subject-matter, radiating out in various and even opposing directions, like the spokes of a wheel, and producing natural realities in departments very foreign to the apparent tendency of the reading of the first or starting picture. Notion may give rise to connected notion, but if it does, then, however apparently incongruous, all resulting ideas must spring from the original picture and be harmonically connected, or related." etc. etc. --- there are more... (HPB - Secret Doctrine vol. 1, p. 308-309)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm


So "idea pictures" might create energies of opposing directions. The importance of this is often better understood by those able to think about and analyse a lot of different issues at the same time. People are able to do this, when they are somewhat spiritual devleoped. Almost like present day Computer multitasking or for instance like a good female dog named Sirius giving milk to its 7 or "seven" doggies.



2.
So your idea about 1) is not so helpful to use as the idea, since 1) is contained in 2). And 2). depending on what Keys you use or interpret with, you will from time to time get opposing results, as said in the above quotes. And therefore one might think that HPB was wrong and not in accordance with what you call real Science (i.e. for instance your narrowminded interpretation). At other times you will se the light and agree in a manner not intended.


Because HPB said in the end of The Secret Doctrine vol. 2:
"Thus far have proceeded the rough outlines of the beliefs and tenets of the archaic, earliest Races contained in their hitherto secret Scriptural records. But our explanations are by no means complete, nor do they pretend to give out the full text, or to have been read by the help of more than three or four keys out of the sevenfold bunch of esoteric interpretation, and even this has only been partially accomplished. The work is too gigantic for any one person to undertake, far more to accomplish. Our main concern was simply to prepare the soil. This, we trust we have done. These two volumes only constitute the work of a pioneer who has forced his way into the well-nigh impenetrable jungle of the virgin forests of the Land of the Occult. A commencement has been made to fell and uproot the deadly upas trees of superstition, prejudice, and conceited ignorance, so that these two volumes should form for the student a fitting prelude for Volumes III. and IV. Until the rubbish of the ages is cleared away from the minds of the Theosophists to whom these volumes are dedicated, it is impossible that the more practical teaching contained in the Third Volume should be understood. Consequently, it entirely depends upon the reception with which Volumes I. and II. will meet at the hands of Theosophists and Mystics, whether these last two volumes will ever be published, though they are almost completed.
  Satyat Nasti paro dharmah.

THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN TRUTH.

End of Vol. II."
 (HPB - Secret Doctrine vol. 2, p. 797)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume2.htm



So why not consider that HPB's other articles and even her letters also was using at least 3-4 keys?
Remember, that HPB stated in the Secret Doctrine, that some of what she wrote, she knew would be received in a manner she havn't even thought of herself!

We could consider, that there are seven keys to use on each of the seven planes of existence /consciousness within the theosophical schema.

---
A few more words I would like to add.
HPB said:
"Strange to say, the Occult teaching reverses the characters; it is the anthropomorphous archangel with the Christians, and the man-like God with the Hindus, which represent matter in this case; and the Dragon, or Serpent, Spirit. Occult symbolism furnishes the key to the mystery; theological symbolics conceal it still more. For the former explains many a saying in the Bible and even in the New Testament which have hitherto remained incomprehensible; while the latter, owing to its dogma of Satan and his rebellion, has belittled the character and nature of its would-be infinite, absolutely perfect god, and created the greatest evil and curse on earth â belief in a personal Devil. This mystery is opened with the key to its metaphysical symbolism now restored; while that of theological interpretation shows the gods and the archangels standing as symbols for the dead letter or dogmatic religions, and as arrayed against the pure truths of Spirit, naked and unadorned with fancy." (HPB - Secret Doctrine vol. 2, p. 377)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume2.htm



The use of the 7 keys of course depends on the level of consciousness.




M. Sufilight





  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:20 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?





  Dear Morten,

  Yes, it all depends on specific examples and then go from there. 

  Question though: 

  Is conventional science: 

  1) one of the 7 keys to understand symbols and allegories

  2) also to be interpreted according to 7 keys?

  The first I can understand and find illuminating, for example in case of the Christain Gospels. 

  The second would be slightly problematic. What would be the astrological interpretation of Einstein's general law of relativity, or the psychological interpretation of gravity, or the metaphysical interpretation of electricity?

  Shah's list is interesting, but also the perfect manual for any spiritual con man to deflect criticism. 

  Anything in HPB's writings to back it up? 

  Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:27 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?

  Dear friends and Govert

  My views are:

  Thanks.
  You asked: What does that imply if a physical, scientific claim does not pan out? 

  We have to ask ourselves what kind of "scientific" claim we consider using. One with only one Key or one using all the 7 Keys of interpretation or knowledge.

  I would say as long as a person do not quite know how the 7 keys operates one will have to take this into account as a possibility.
  And therefore I also provided the quote taken from Idries Shah's book, because the words in that quote are quite logical when viewed from an esoteric point of view. Do you not think so? 

  So if inaccuraccies might occur, they could have been created deliberately with another aim in mind, than perceived by the non-initiated or lees able Seeker. Yet if the inaccuracy are consistent and mentioned several times, then we might consider it to be a mistake on the writers part, in this case Blavatsky's. That seems logical. Even so that might also be a false conslusion to reach. - Yet the theosophists are always concerned with the Truth and with Knowledge instead of assumptions. So "We cull the good we find in each", while we seek to make use of the Akasa records. 

  - - - - - - - -

  Here is a little story...

  *** True and false teachers ***

  Since there are so many people all over the world claiming that
  they are spiritual teachers, many of those who want to follow
  them - and those who want to refute them - spend much time
  trying to work out which are real ones and which are not.
  What is rather remarkable is that a great many of these
  self-styled teachers are discernibly not teachers, if studied with
  the normal rational apparatus which is of some value even to
  Seekers after Truth.

  There is a story about a man who went up to another one who
  was selling what he described as 'the most deliciuos and 
  irreplaceable honey in the world' in a market-place. 'If it is so
  marvellous,' he asked, 'why are you selling it?'
  'I wouldn't try, you may be sure,' answered the honey-seller,
  'if a mouse hadn't fallen into it!'

  Now, in spiritual matters it may be claimed that the seeker,
  however sincere, connot tell whether there is a mouse in the
  honey of the teaching which he offered. But if he would only
  steel himself to look at the honey with dead mice floating on top,
  he would start to learn how to recognize the real thing. If you
  can test a verifiable counterfeit, you will eventually find a coin
  which is gold. Those who start at the other end: who can test
  gold without being confused by counterfeits, are a different lot
  of people, sad to say.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:52 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?

  Dear Morten,

  Thanks for the explanation for the set of possible inaccuracies which have to do with the deeper meaning of esoteric metaphysics. 

  As HPB said (and you quoted):

  "Having never claimed personal infallibility, that which is given on her own authority may leave much to be desired, in the very abstruse cases where too deep metaphysics is involved."

  This implies that in less abstruse cases there is less left to be desired, i.e. she would be less fallible and therefore more accurate.

  The non-abstruse and non-metaphysical ideas in HPB's work I'm interested in are those that can be checked against the scientific record like historical, astronomical and biological data. I'm also looking into her use and understanding of western philosophy as I have studied some of that myself. 

  Of course it's possible that even if certain ideas are inaccurate in one perspective they might yield meaning in another. 

  Again, as HPB stated:

  "... that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical." (or other way around)

  But, her observation was preceded by the qualification that 

  "... there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory ..." 

  So, it looks like that to any "symbol and allegory" there are seven keys of interpretation, some of which might be scientific and some of which might not yield any meaning.

  What does that imply if a physical, scientific claim does not pan out? 

  Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:59 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?

  May I?

  Some appearnt inaccuracies given by H. P. Blavatsky happend according to my views because of the importance of the use of the Seven Keys, and the Mystery Language. 

  That of course apart from the recent e-mails here at Theos-talk on the faults in Isis Unveiled due to certain problems created by H. S. Olcott and some economical problems preventing the necessary corrections being made in time.

  1.
  H. P. Blavatsky said:
  "Why should Venus and Mercury have no satellites, and by what, when they exist, were they formed? Because, we say, science has only one keyâthe key of matterâto open the mysteries of nature withal, while occult philosophy has seven keys and explains that which science fails to see. Mercury and Venus have no satellites but they had "parents" just as the earth had. Both are far older than the Earth and, before the latter reaches her seventh Round, her mother Moon will have dissolved into thin air, as the "Moons" of the other planets have, or have not, as the case may be, since there are planets which have several moonsâa mystery again which no Ådipus of astronomy has solved." (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 155)
  http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm

  2.
  H. P. Blavatsky said:
  " It is maintained that INDIA (not in its present limits, but including its ancient boundaries) is the only country in the world which still has among her sons adepts, who have the knowledge of all the seven sub-systems and the key to the entire system. Since the fall of Memphis, Egypt began to lose those keys one by one, and Chaldea had preserved only three in the days of Berosus. As for the Hebrews, in all their writings they show no more than a thorough knowledge of the astronomical, geometrical and numerical systems of symbolizing all the human, and especially the physiological functions. They never had the higher keys." (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 311)

  3.
  "For, his pre-Adamic races â not Satanic but simply Atlantic, and the Hermaphrodites before the latter â are mentioned in the Bible when read esoterically, as they are in the Secret Doctrine. The SEVEN KEYS open the mysteries, past and future, of the seven great Root Races, as of the seven Kalpas. "
  (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 325)

  4.
  "All the words and sentences placed in brackets in the Stanzas and Commentaries are the writer's. In some places they may be incomplete and even inadequate from the Hindu standpoint; but in the meaning attached to them in Trans-Himalayan Esotericism they are correct. In every case the writer takes any blame upon herself. Having never claimed personal infallibility, that which is given on her own authority may leave much to be desired, in the very abstruse cases where too deep metaphysics is involved. The teaching is offered as it is understood; and as there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory, that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical." (The Secret Doctrine, vol. 2, p. 22)

  5.

  "Characteristics of Theosophical Litterature

  Here are a few characteristics of Theosophical litterature. Read the below carefully and do not underestimate the contents value: 

  A. Some books, some passages, are intended to be read in a certain order. 

  B. Some books and passages have to be read under specific environmental conditions. 

  C. Some have to be read aloud, some silently, some alone, some in company. 

  D. Some are only vehicles for illustrations or other content generally regarded as extraneous or secondary to the text. 

  E. Some are of limited use or ephemeral function, being addressed to communities in certain places, at certain stages of development, or for a limited time. 

  F. Some forms have concealed meanings which yield coherent but misleading meanings, safety-devices to ward of tamperers. 

  G. Some are interlarded with material deliberately designed to confuse or sidetrack those who are not properly instructed, for their own protection. 

  H. Some books contain a completely different potential, and they are communicators through another means than the writing contained in them. They are not designed primarily to be read at all. 

  I. Theosophical litterature is a part of carefully worked out plan. Its abuse lead to nothing of permanent value. 

  Theosophical teachings, and sometimes keys to it, are sometimes embedded in quite other material, not recognisable as theosophical at all to the uninitiated. Many of these teachings are really meditation-themes. They have deep function almost unknown to the pedestrian conventionalists, enthusiasts, imitators or occultist. " (Rewritten by me from Idries Shah's book "Learning How to Learn")

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:32 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: why did Blavatsky made so many mistakes? why?

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:
  >
  > 
  > On Apr 24, 2009, at 4/24/097:26 PM, Anand wrote:
  > 
  > > Blavatsky gives many references. Has anyone checked whether those 
  > > references are correct or not? Has anyone shown contradictions?
  >

  Few weeks back Govert said he checked few references from Blavatsky's writing and found that they were wrong. That prompted this interesting question whether anybody has checked references given by Blavatky. It is very strange that there is no popular book dealing with accuracy and inaccuracy of her references. For last many months my inner voice is telling me to do assessment of Blavatsky's writing. But you can imagine it is more convenient to see if anybody has done it already.

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

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

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

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



  

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