Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00438)

Jerry S:

>I rather see theosophy as a presentation
>of truth (and only one of many such presentations), and would never never say
>theosophy *is* truth (nor would I say *anything* is truth per se, because I
>believe that truth is infinite and eternal and incapable of labeling).

We have the dual nature to things: the virtues and qualities that are
absolute, unconditioned, beyond manifestation, eternal, and perfect, and
qualities that are relative, conditioned, in relation to the manifest,
mortal, and imperfect. The absolutes have their mortal counterparts.

The same is true with Theosophy or Divine Wisdom. There is *our experience*
of absolute truths, and there is the mortal, finite, but still respectable
knowledge of the Mahatmas, some of which they have shared with us.

> HPB very clearly admitted to holding back some
>information ("truths" if you will). She said that the time was not ready
>yet. So, theosophy as presented in the Source Teachings or Core Teachings
>(and I rather like Jerry H-E's definition of HPB, The MLs, and Judge as a
>definition of core teachings) is incomplete as given out.

Most of us would agree that what HPB gave out were crumbs of the grand
Teachings that she had access to.

>So, here is the real problem for us - when someone
>comes along and says "Look, here are some more of the Teachings that were not
>given out in the core teachings" how are we to receive this? Do we reject it
>out of hand as being "secondary?" Perhaps we must ultimately each answer
>this question in our own way.

>From a purely historical standpoint, someone might say that later materials
were secondary. But that is looking at the external shell of things, looking
as HPB as the source of what she said, and later writers as people that
elaborated on her writings. There are other ways of considering the situation
in which later writings are not "secondary." That is if we consider the
source not as HPB, but as her Masters, and anyone thru whom they speak as
being primary sources in exactly the same way as HPB was, while anyone they
did not speak through as secondary. (My perference is to consider Purucker
as primary in this sense, but that is *my* preference and I won't try to
"convert" anyone to "believe" in Purucker.)

It's not as much a matter of answering this question in our own way, as it
is, I'd say, each of us considering the situation in terms of what beliefs
we are comfortable with. If someone wants to stick with a strictly
historic account, stay to physical events, and discount the Masters themselves
in their appreciation of what happened, that's fine. For myself, I see their
involvement as significant in what happened, in the effort to put some of
the Mystery Teachings before the western public.

-- Eldon