Theos-Talk Archives (September 1993 Message tl00035)

successful in sending it until this evening (Wednesday, Sept. 22).
Since then, more messages have appeared that I wish to respond to.

To Donald DeGracia's message of 20 Sept.:

     I think both Sara's and Eldon's concepts are true from their
own respective viewpoints.  The relevancy of Ideas are certainly in
a constant state of change.  But it really isn't the ideas that
become more or less relevant as circumstances change; it is our own
conceptions of those ideas that change because of our own
psychological milieu that is in a state of flux.  Ideas are ideas,
and in essence, the same ones keep reappearing in different forms
from century to century.

     Your challenge to Eldon to "display" a "genuine mystery
teaching" peaks my interest, but I suspect that first you two will
need to come to an agreement as to what a "genuine mystery
teaching" would look like if you saw one.

     Good point you made that Blavatsky never intended us to take
the Theosophical teachings on faith.  She was aiming her writings
to active and inquiring minds who would seek to understand and test
these teachings in what ever way was appropriate.  She wasn't
trying to dole out teachings to a bunch of sponges who do nothing
but absorb and believe.  That is why she wrote in the preface of
the KEY TO THEOSOPHY: "To the mentally lazy or obtuse, Theosophy
must remain a riddle; for in the world mental as in the world
spiritual each man must progress by his own efforts."

     Are you asserting that Blavatsky's writings are no longer
relevant to this era?  In what particulars?  Or are you dismissing
her writings on the grounds that they are over a hundred years old?
If the ladder; should we dismiss everything written over 100 years
ago as irrelevant to this era?  How about fifty years ago, or
twenty years?

     Regarding the material you are drawing from Rudhyar regarding
the progressive enlightenment of humanity--he was talking about the
theosophical movement (not to be confused with the Theosophical
Society), only he didn't use that term.  Rudhyar's association with
theosophy goes back to very early in this century, and his writings
are rich in those concepts.

To Eldon Tucker's message of 21 Sept.:

     You distinction between blind faith and confidence (shall we
call it reasoned faith? Or perhaps certitude?) is important--I glad
to see it made.

     Regarding your experiences concerning differences in teachings
between Besant\Leadbeater and dePurucker--this sounds like an
excellent topic for discussion.  I hope you and others might share
their experiences in comparative reading of theosophical authors.

     Jerry Hejka-Ekins
     jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org