Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01281)

Jerry HE:
> I think were have the same thought here, but I made a poor
>choice of words.  My dictionary defines "extant" as still
>existing, which is not what I had in mind.  A better choice of
>words for me would have been "exoteric"  or "popular" Indian
>system.  Though truth can be found in every great religion, the
>Maha Chohan also pointed out that all religions are also 3/4
>superstition.

We should not confuse a religion with an esoteric treatise. It would be the
same as confusing the average view of theosophists with the ideas contained
in the Secret Doctrine. On the contrary in my opinion religionists
generally distorts the texts in one or other direction - especially during
translation. The bible is the wellknown example of this, but permit me, as
an example, to quote from a private letter to Eldon written a few days ago
-

"A very short example - in the commentary on Bhagavad Gita 8.3 Shankara
describes the active state of the universe as pravritti (as in ML XV) and
the inactive state as "paramartha - the dissolution or cessation of brahma"
(paramaarthabrahmaavasaanaM) as in the stanzas - "The universe was in
Paramartha." Now this sounds simple enough, but in the translation of the
hindu pundits of this passage it sound like this -
"turns out in the end to be identical with the supreme reality, the
Brahman" (Sastri) and "which in the ultimate analysis is Parabrahman"
(Gambhirananda).
  They are postulating a semi-theistical principle by ignoring the term
cessation or dissolution."

   I will go as far as saying that no ancient, eastern work can be studied
from the translation alone. It is the same with hindu, buddhistic and
hebrew writings.The theistic krishna-bhaktis (precisely like christians)
will insert the word "God" in all kinds of places, while the orthodox
brahmins will insert the word "Brahman."

>....Yet voodoo is a reasonable and comprehensive religious system within
>itself.  Personally, I don't see a rational way to tell a reconciliation
from a
>syncretism, and I suspect that our intuitions might differ here.
>Further, I would be inclined to think that the bringing in of outside
authorities >would just complicate things and run the discussion into
tangents.

Hmm.. I had just started to examine the detailed exposition of Asanga (the
founder of the Yogacharya School) on tattva, paramartha and the 7 skandhas
in chapter 6 of the Mahayanasutralamkara (the "Tattva" chapter). This would
solve several mysteries as to the relation between the 7 principles and the
7 elements, which in the Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 takes the form of an
identification TAT TVAm asi, "That thou art", thus implying the term
tattva. But I will refrain from following this line of investigation (a
great pity!).

   Instead I am left with the works of HPB and a few diagrams in "A
Treatise on Cosmic Fire" representing the view of CWL. As the various the
explanations of HPB are as apparently irreconcilable as the CWL-HPB
differencies we will have to resort to our own "esoteric" valuation of her
writings - since a dead-letter investigation will make them seem
contradictory - instead of relying on historical "authorities" to solve the
true meaning of the words. But you are quite right that the scope of our
discussion would be enormous. But as it is vital it can be as prolongued as
you wish.
   If your view was correct we all aught to abandon all the works of not
only CWL but also AB, AAB and many 20th century theosophical writers
instantly! A few mistakes would be acceptable, but not a completely flawed
understanding.
   Now when we have set up a set of rules for this discussion in some
length, I certainly hope you will make use of them and defend your views -
or we will both seem rather silly! If you are busy, please reply at a later
time.

In friendship,

Kim
- as a PS remark I would like that when my friend Alan reversed the meaning
of the term "my friend" I just had adressed you as such in a post- in the
original meaning of the term.