Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl01001)

On Tue, 26 Sep 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:
> 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.

Certainly ... but even my economic professors introduced not just
one point of view, but many. No professor told me that Marx alone was
correct economics, and that every question regarding economics should be
answered by referring to Marx, and then - were I to disagree - that I
obviously do not "accept" Marx, with a tone implying that I had yet to
see the light. Rich seemed to do this with HPB on the issue of abortion.

> 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.

But it is a belief system. It is one of many "occult" systems of
thought, each that contains (IMO) something of value ... and to those
within it, it is often spoken of as "the" system - which is fine, so long
as this attitude does not become domineering - as I've most definitly
seen it do.

> 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.

Yes. But I was responding to a post in which the written word was
being used to support a person's viewpoint on a current issue.

> 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.

Yes, as we can with a whole host of different writers. We can
even speculate that HPB & the Masters might have written differently, and
applied applied the ancient wisdom differently, were they writing in
these very different times.

> 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?

Me too. I don't disparage HPB, and certainly give her
Cosmogenesis more weight than the "Creationism" preached by
fundamentalists. But it is still, finally, one perspective.

> >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.

Yes, I do not dispute this and have been enriched by HPB, but
also by many, *many* others - I don't put her writings on a pedestal
above all other writings, however, and hence will always get in trouble
with those that do.

> 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.

You seem to be making a point that simply doesn't apply to myself
or what I wrote. It is not that I somehow refuse to learn from HPB, it is
that I've learned from many more as well, and actually have the gall to
try to formulate my own ideas on things - and while I will often see what
HPB had to say, I'll also survey what dozens of others have to say, and
will not simply choose which one of them I accept, but may even come to a
conclusion different than all of them. I don't need Theosophy 101
lectures on why we should read someone else before thinking about something.

> 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.

Yes. And I don't think current Theosophy holds more than one
piece, one angle, on that wisdom. A very valid angle, but not by any
means the only one or the "highest" one.

> >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.

But it *was* a discussion of Rich's personal views on abortion.
And he was quoting HPB with the same attitude of Daniel quoting the
bible - and I was pointing out that things have changed dramatically
since HPB's time, and that it is even possible that *she* might have a
different opinion today.

> >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".
>
> >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.

Rich can do whatever he wants. When he speaks to me, however,
with the attitude of the Christian ("HPB is quite clear, Or did you miss
that"), I'll respond to him as I respond to the Christian. When I was his
age, I was also deeply emeshed in the SD, and thought I had found the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have grown since then.

> >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.

And precisely what do you mean by this? That either I accept the
Theosophical canon, or anything else is "personal opinion"? Seems to me
that the way to remain as unclouded and unbiased as possible is to survey
the widest possible range of ideas of others, and then to draw them into
one's own system, evaluate them, and reach conclusions (where it is
possible). The mind of one that believes one point of view is higher than
all others, and whose sole method of comparative evaluation lies in
comparing everything to that one system is in far more danger of bias and
distortion, are they not?

> >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.

Yes. One of many.

> >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.

Was there a request that this be accorded special status?

I will not try to demonstrate their nature and status in an arena
where people have already reached conclusions prior to evidence even
being presented. There are too many other places containing a spirit of
genuinely open-minded inquiry. And I was not requesting, here, that
anyone give my opinions any weight ... merely stating the reasons why I
am still associated with Theosophy. And, by the way, you seem to often
make rather large, universal statements about what is true without
identifying your source(s) of knowledge, do you not? If you wish to
continually hint that I need to name and justify my sources, I would
request that you first do so yourself.

> >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.

A nice belief system.

> >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".

And how do you know this? You do not think the Masters alter
college curriculum and methods of teaching to take into account the
changing nature of both the inner worlds and the nature of the pupils?
You, Rich, and others seem to see the ancient wisdom in state space - as
containing the final words on reality, and pupils as people who simply
must fit themselves to gain access to that wisdom, integrate it, and so
alter themselves that they finish the evolutionary cycle ahead of the
norm. I see the ancient wisdom in phase space, as an evolving, dynamic
system whose expression, and even essence alters and refines over time -
*we are told* that even the Masters, even those in "charge" of the
ancient wisdom have not "finished" evolution, but are on a higher cycle
of it - you don't think *they*, as *they* grow and evolve, don't alter
what they do as they gain fuller understandings of the "Plan" - don't
*themselves* frame it to themselves in fuller terms (which from our point
of view would mean that the ancient wisdom has *changed*) - don't change
the ways they work with students to fit the changing nature of the
students (which they are said to know better than anyone else) - think
you that the "junior colleges" in Atlantis were the *same* as they are now?

You may see the process of learning in the junior college as one
of integrating knowledge into your being, and altering your energy-system
so as to gain access to the full university. I see it as generating
currents from within myself that are of a nature and refinement required
to blend into the larger currents of wisdom flowing on the planet - as
bending my tributary to enter the larger river.

You may not agree with my perspective, but I don't think your
assumptions about the nature of the ancient wisdom and the methods of
teaching it are more "correct" than mine ... which come from not just
reading the SD & other works, but thinking through the ramifications of
what is written there.

> >But articulations of the "ancient wisdom" are all over the place,
>
> The articulations are not the truths themselves.

Tell this to Rich, who seemed to be using them as such. I've
never made this mistake, in fact most of the "wisdom" I believe I've
touched can not even be vaugely hinted at in words. Wisdom, in my
subjective world, only *begins* at the "arupa" level - the formless- it
is a *flow* composed of multiple currents, not a *thing* ... and that
flow will take on very different forms depending upon the prism through
which it refracts (the personality layers of a particular generation).

 >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.

There is in Complexity Theory. And looking at some of the SD
through its eyes is a very interesting exercise. And in fact in a number
of different areas it is (IMO) clear that the Masters saw things from the
Complexity point of view, but lacked the vocabulary currently being
developed in the sciences. A lot of the cutting edge of modern science is
*remarkably* occult knowledge.

> >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.

Yes. I agree. Again, tell that to the fellow you are defending,
who seems to wish to reslove the entire abortion debate by saying "this
is what HPB said, and that's all there is to it - and if you don't agree
you are wrong". I have been saying throughout that it is a *choice* of
the woman (and man) involved, and that anyone else's judgements
(including mine) are secondary and quite irrelevant.

> Fellow Student,
> Eldon

With kind regards, -JRC