Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00381)

RI:

>... when a person considers the "overall philosophy" to be the
>result of a Divine Dispensation of some sort "synthesis" may just
>be the throwing away of the new perspectives which do not fit very
>well with the way the philosophy was originally articulated.

Only if the new part of our thinking is at risk of change and
what we've thought before is considered sacrosanct. If we allow
both the old and new ideas to be *at risk* and freshly rethink
things each time then the synthesis involves a new version of
both the old and the new.

There are many issues involved here. The idea of a divine dispensation
involves the issue of authority and how knowledgable the source of
what we study is. Finding an authentic source of occult knowledge to
study is similar to finding an authentic guru to study under -- it is
something that we have to do on an individual basis.

Another issue is regarding how we *know* something. I'd say that
there are different ways that we can know things. One is the traditional
way of "going there and doing it". There is a second-hand way of learning
from those with knowledge and experience that we don't yet have. But
there is also I'd say a third way of knowing by the power of mind
a manner of knowing things through "inner sight" where "sight" is a
metaphor and not literally the sense of vision.

You're right in your point where you indicate that what we've known
before should be subject to change during the process of synthesis.

>Could this be the underlying reason why Paul's book continues to get
>such a sustained negative reaction from certain people? I mean by
>suggesting that actual human beings were the basis for the Masters
>does it not open up the possibility that the overall
>philosophy-cum-verbiage "conveyed" by them through H.P.B. is not
>indefectible enough to be in the category of Things Not to Be Changed?

It challenges a number of misconceptions about the Masters. They
are living men not mythical angels. And HPB's writings are subject
to error as are any writing. I haven't closely followed the debate
over Paul's books but get the impression that the disagreement is
not so much over the human nature of the Mahatmas as much as it is
over the specific individuals identified as the Masters.

In the absence of a living teacher to train us and help us understand
the occult truths we're on our own to make sense of the materials
found in the literature of the past including the theosophical
materials. Certainly there are veils exoteric blinds and other
manners in which deeper truths are conveyed under camouflage. We're
on our own to mine for these truths or to walk away from them if
we don't have much success digging for them. There are many sources
for the Buddhadharma and Mahatmadharma or Theosdharma; we seek out
the one that works best for us and honor it.

>I like Keith's attitude actually.

His writings show that he is trying to freshly think things through
for himself which is an important practice. My basic comment to
him was that since all the truths are interconnected we need to
bring them back together again after such an analysis. His description
was focused upon the power of the ancestors and the *living status quo*
of life to define the parameters of our existence. I was trying to
bring this back into connection with the idea of us as Monads as
imperishable sparks of divinity transcending existence and participation
in space and time.

I think that through a number of iternations of freshly thinking
through the theosophical philosophy our understanding grows and
we get closer and closer to true knowledge. Of course that knowledge
is of *thisness* of the fullness of life and needs to be supplemented
by its dual nature of *thatness* of the emptiness or transparency
of life.

-- EldonM