Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00243)

Dear Keith et al,

I found your post on art very helpful and clarifying.  I added my
few comments below.  In fact I joined your imaginary
conversation.  I think what is interesting is that in the end the
whole debate of the historicity of the Mahatma's brings up the
old debates on the Historical Jesus.  I answered that in the same
way as your imaginary guest does.  I think it is only responsible
for us to attempt to translate theosophy into modern dress
without loosing it essence.  I look forward to the comments of
other on these possiblies.  Thank You Keith.

Keith: Jung used the same idea about the power of the archetypes.
They have no outside existence, but they sure have power in our
lives as much as science, religion and philosophy ever will, This
saves a lot of headaches.

Art: I am not sure Jung was saying that they have no existence
but rather that our capacity to know directly is limited so
therefore metaphysical statements must all be relative.  I call
this hermeneutical agnosticism and consider it a humble approach
to any symbol.  I think that the human apparatus is insufficient
to be exposed to the archetypes directly so they are mediated
through "archetypal images'.  This is where art comes in in my
opinion.  If you want to explore the possibility of immediate
contact with the archetypes try Place of the Lion by Charles
Williams.  The archetypes become real and enter space time
reality to dumbfound an academic.

JC: Well, yes, but the truth is not objective or outter, it is
inner and symbolic, but powerful nonetheless

(OK, this is unfair to both parties, but this is not meant as a
transcript of any kind but my personal reaction to Bill Moyers,
playing dumb for all the poor groundlings in America who just
might not get it the way they get the "reality" and "truth" of
football plays and the like.)

Well the same can be said for the power of art.  It's not
something you can touch, but it's effects are something you can
see.  In fact, the problem is art is so powerful, it is easily
abused and we hardly notice, as in Nazi Germany, advertising, MTV
(Beavis and Butthead are heroes to a generation, now that's art
and that's a little too real), church ritual, a veritable four
act play with music and sets.

So the problem isn't art, but the idea"only, merely, just" art
and that art is somehow less than the other domains.

Art: To put in another way I would suggest that art is a mediator
of archetypes of the human consciousness.

PN: Well, I can't say I liked your long winded discussion of art
and spirituality.  It was a compete waste of my time.  Why didn't
you focus on something important like the truth in the "The
Secret Doctine" of "The Mahatma Letters".

KN: Well actually I was coming to that.  It finally occured to me
that the reason why HPB eschewed a discussion of art and why she
didn't include it in the synthesis is that this was her greatest
unconscious fear.

Art: Was is fear of that she was so close to the archetypes that
she couldn't differentiate? Was is possible that HPB was
primarily an artist and you know the sort of damage it does for
an artist to become a theorist of art.  I think she would have
become terribly reductionist if she were to dissect art rather
than live it.

PN: What the heck do you mean?

KN: That "The Secret Doctrine" would be labeled art.  That is
something made up like a novel to amuse children.  That she
didn't really have any Senzar palm leaves or hear voices of the
Masters, but was very skillfully creating her own Gnostic system
(as Jung suggests, see collected works CGJ).  The Gnostic's (as
their very successful critics pointed out) created a new Gospel
of Christ everyday right out of their heads and in fact were
expected to do so.

PN: Well did she have the palm leaves and hear the voices or not?

Art: This is the same as the child asking the question how did
the dinosaurs get on Noah's ark? The teenager asks if Adam and
Eve were anthropoids and the adult asks if the miracles
"happened" in space and time.  All these are examples of literal
hermeneutics applied to myth and symbol.

KN: You know I have no idea and I really don't care.  "The Secret
Doctine" either stands or falls on its own merits not on any palm
leaves or voices.

Art: This is the same arguement that could be used for any
Scripture: Hindu, Christian or Muslim.  Does the Scripture evoke
the archetype and does the read participate in some way with what
they are reading.

PN: Let me get this straight, you're saying that the SD is not
historical fact, but a work of art, a lie.

KN: Well again, I really don't know and I really don't care.  The
SD is obviously the greatest occult work to date, why label it?

PN: But you can't really be saying that history about Lemuria and
Atlantis is just a moral fable.

Art: There are intriguing theories that suggest the actual
existence of Atlantis and they can be explored with interest.
But this is not to say that my experience of Atlantis or the
concept behind it is contingent on literal reality.  A healthy
agnosticism concerning Atlantis is I think required as a faith
perserver otherwise theosophy becomes just another
fundamentalism.

PN: But you can't be trying to tell us that the Stanza of Dzhan
are just a fairy tale.

KN: How can I phrase it? I really don't know and I really don't
care.  The Stanzas open the eye of intuiton to the collective
unconcious where the storehouse of all humanity's encoded wisdom
lies.  Some can access this wisdom easier than others.  Some call
these people Masters, some call them artists, some call them
liers.

Art: Some are peasants others are academics others are saints.
In a negative way some are mad men and women, cult leaders and
charismatic leaders.  All of us have a degree of connection to
the archetype stewarding the gift, exploring it, and using it are
responsibilites that we have to take serious.  The inner Teacher
as someone has said on line is much more important that what
appears as an external authority.  Perhaps the Mahatmas were hte
inner teachers of HPB that she projected on a group of Tibetan
sages.  That way Paul would be right and so would those who see
the Mahatmas as more supra-historical.  Both and not either or
suits me fine.

PN: But shouldn't we keep up a front.  I mean what if people
found out that the "Secret Doctrine" is only a heavily researched
creation of HPB and cannot claim a higher authority.

Art: It is back to the ol authority problem is it? Authority
meaning to bind.  What are we bound to? I think the best
authority is inner and self authenticating not external and
second hand.  What is your experience of the Secret Doctrine as
you read it? We can be intrigued by what HPB thought and felt as
she wrote it.  We can even participate in some of the quality of
that experience but what is the Secret Doctrine do for you, now?
I am sure that HPB wouldn't appreciate a parroting approach so
her work is open to critical thought.

KN: IRDKAIRDC.  With what 10,000 mebers (a generous figure), I
don't really think we are going to get many more seekers by
bringing up percipitated teacups and letters that fell from the
ceiling or that were discovered in chests with false backs.  Do
you?

Art: I remember when Charles Templeton wrote a book in the
seventies concerning find ing the bones of Jesus.  The question
concerned whether faith would disappear for Christendom or not.
Of course if you are a rationalist or a materialist there would
be no faith after the finding of those bleached bones but what
about those who have a living relationship to the Christ
archetype.  There would undoubtedly be a bump in the road a few
pots and pans would fall off the faith cart but it would not be
the end.  Reconfiguring faith might breath life into the dead
recitation of dogma.  Could this not be possibly true in
Theosophy?