Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00992)

JRC:

> [writing to Rich]

>If you mean I don't
>simply *believe* everything HPB and other Theosophists wrote, why no I
>don't, as I don't simply *believe* in *anything* another person writes.

What about something like Jerry H-E's "reasoned certitude". Do you study
with deferred judgement the writings of authorities on a subject, until
you know about it sufficiently? If you grant this status to a college
professor, you are more likely to learn from him than if you come to the
classroom filled with personal views that block further learning.

We're not asked to "believe in" what Blavatsky wrote, since it is not
offered as nor intended to be another belief system, for somelike Daniel H.
to drop his religion and take up with equal conviction.

The materials often go beyond the power of the written word to convey
their meanings. A guru or knowledge of the materials from prior lifetimes
is almost necessary to pick out some of the deeper Teachings.

While we cannot take what Blavatsky wrote in a dead-letter sense, because
there is much more to it than that, we can use the intellect and see how
far we can go with a logical application of what she wrote.

I would, myself, give much more weight to a passage by Blavatsky, than,
for instance, to an except from a Cayce reading. We're still left, though,
having to answer the question, in looking at the words: What does this
really mean?

>I have read HPB extensively, but also literature from other large occult
>systems, as well as from a dozen or so modern sciences ... and have
>reached the point of *believing* that the world and its
>multidimensional reality is just out and out too vast for any particular
>point of view to anything other than one angle of vision on that
>immensity.

There are limits to any manner of expressing the occult side of life.
Life is vast, and exceeds our ability to comprehend it. All we can do is
to open up to it in all directions, and take in what we can. Part of this
opening up is to benefit from the wisdom and learning of those far ahead
of us. There's much to be gained, for instance, from HPB's works.

Without the training and assistance of others ahead of us, the road is
long, slow, and much more difficult. If we grew up on a desert island,
surrounded by nature and with no other people about us, we would not be
able to derive a knowledge of mathematics on our own. By growing up around
others that know and teach us matehmatics, we learn far more than we could
have achieved on our own.

The idea of the Path and the Masters is that there is a tremendous amount
of learning and wisdom that we can take advantage of, if we choose, wisdom
that represents an entire Round's worth of evolution.

>And I fear I have a difficult time telling the difference
>between being considered "wrong" about an issue because I don't believe
>HPB's ideas and opinions are absolute, being considered wrong because I
>don't believe "Jesus's" ideas are absolute, and being considered wrong
>because I don't accept the assumptions current in the sciences I study.

In a discussion of *personal views*, you are not wrong. And Daniel H. is
not wrong. And I'm not wrong. In a discussion of Theosophy, when we focus
on the source Teachings, any of us can be wrong and subject to correction,
when our writings stray from that which has been given us.

>You seem to ground your opinion in HPB's, and claim it to have
>some sort of additional authority because you do so. You imply that your
>opinion is identified with the (alledgedly "correct") Theosophical
>"teachings".

If Rich is writing from the source Teachings, and identifies his views
with it, that is fine. He can claim no personal authority for those views,
but just say that he is trying to accurate present Theosophy *as it has
been taught us*. He may also at times write his own personal ideas, and
label them as such.

>All of which is certainly fine so long as you don't expect
>everyone to accept that authority as absolute in some way.

When writing on behalf of the theosophical philosophy, Rich can agree
with you at times, and say you're wrong at other times. When he is doing
so, this is simply intellectual honesty. It is often possible to tell
when something is in accord with what we have been taught, and in the
name of further studying it we can examine things that are said for
consistency with it.

When Rich does this, though, he is not saying that you or any particular
person has to *believe in* the whole package. The choice is yours as to
what degree of authority you ascribe to the Teachings, as presented through
Blavatsky.

>That said, I still stay around Theosophy because 1) I greatly
>admire HPB, (who I actually believe would be somewhat appalled to be used
>as an absolute authority of any sort),

She would not want to be considered an absolute authority. We share an
admiration of her. But what she wrote about is not just her personal opinion.

>2) "There is no religion higher
>than truth" is a positively smashing attitude, as I *am* seeking *truth*,
>and will seek it through every avenue available - including many that
>have nothing to do with the Theosophical canon,

This is something that we all try to do in our own ways. The problem is
that personal opinion can be as misleading as psychic vision, in clouding
and biasing and distorting what we perceive.

>3) I have met some
>absolutely splendid people in the Theosophical current, people who are
>very intense, sincere seekers of truth who have also thoroughly
>integrated a profound service ethic in their lives,

We find these people everywhere. The theosophical groups are one of many
junior colleges or extension courses for those of us wanting to enroll in
the Mystery Colleges.

>and 4) one of the
>main currents of "angels" with whom I serve in the innerland, and who
>have taken the time to teach me much about the nuances of using energy in
>service,

I would not accord special status to what any particualar person or being
tells me, be it physical or non-physical. We pick our friends and teachers,
be they physical or not, and learn from interaction with them. What
authority you might give to your angels is a personal thing, since you are
in charge of what external sources you tap for information and guidance.
If you were to want others to also give weight to what they tell you, you
would have to demonstrate their nature and status to us.

>has indicated that while the original generating current that
>began this current century's notions of what "Theosophy" is has mostly
>expended itself,

The current presentation of Theosophy in the world is losing energy, in its
role working to "spice up" western thought life. For this role, it could use
a workover. The other aspect to it, as Mystery Teachings, does not age, and
refers to aspects of life that were as true millions of years ago as in
millions of years to come.

>it still contains at least a possibility to be of some
>partial service for another century (despite its currently severely
>introverted and self-involved state) if it can open itself far enough to
>entertain another burst of energy and thought suitable for the *next*
>century.

True, with regard to its role as "spice". Not needed with regard to its
role as "junior college to the Mysteries".

>The ideas articulated by HPB are in some places completely
>unverifiable one way or another, in others very interesting premises, in
>others the glimpse of a paradigm that is useful, and in others a good
>contribution to the body of spiritual and religious thought of our
>species.

The further we get into the ideas, the harder they will become to verify,
except by personal experience through initiation. The metaphors and
philosophical concepts that Blavatsky used are partial expressions of
a type of thinking and understanding that I don't think we have a good
understanding of. The thoughtlife and mental faculties of a Fifth Rounder
are not just quantitatively greater than our, but also qualitatively
different; there are additional faculties of understanding that are
*simply different* than what we now know and use.

>But articulations of the "ancient wisdom" are all over the place,

The articulations are not the truths themselves. These truths, in the
care of the Masters, are something that we in time will learn, Most
of the wisdom is hidden under exoteric blinds, or reqiring certain keys
to unlock the deeper meanings. Some of these keys are taught to us by
our early theosophical writers. I especially appreciate Purucker for
what I've found in his writings with regard to these "keys".

>and there is no way of knowing, for instance, that the intense
>mathematics of chaos and complexity theorists (which is where I'm drawing
>the concepts required to try to find a principle far more expanded than
>the current "law of karma") are not *this century's* articulations of
>part of the "ancient wisdom",

There is rich symbolism in the field of chaos. We can learn much from
studying it. By itself, though, it provides no philosophical or metaphysical
understandings. It is an area of mathematical symbolism.

>being released now because our science and
>math have reached a point of development that allows a fuller
>articulation of the "ancient wisdom".

The base of knowledge of our current society is rapidly growing. The
field of chaos depends upon computers, which depend upon electricity, etc.
Everything we have is build upon what has come before it.

The same is true of the great truths that the Mahatmas preserve. They
have had not a few hundred or a few thousand years to build upon
previous experience, but literally millions of years.

>Current Theosophy is not a truth, but one of many rooms - and
>while it may be used for guidance, should not be used in attempts to
>dominate: It is a foundation, not a shackle.

When we talk about a particular expression of Theosophy, I'd agree that
it can be used for guidance, but not to dominate the thought life of a
student. And as a foundation, we build upon it. Building upon something
means that you've firmly attached yourself to it, and make it a part of
the structure of your life. The word "shackle" means the same thing,
except that it also implies the holding of an unwilling person to a
place when that person wants to move on. Our relationship to Theosophy
can appear in either form. We can see ourselves firmly rooted in something
that goes deep into the earth, and is solidly a part of our lives. Or we
can see it as something that imprisons us, that holds us back from exploring
other places. How should we view it? It's an individual choice. We both
make the choice for ourselves and should allow others to make their own
choices as well.

Fellow Student,
Eldon