Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00451)

Darrin quotes Paul Brunton>
>But present-day students do not need to study her writings first, as the
>point of view in the present teaching is different from that taken in her
>published work. In her esoteric instruction, her students were told "to
>reduce everything to terms of consciousness."

Richard Ihle writes>
Thank you for passing this along, Darrin.

I wonder what would happen if some individuals followed this instruction and
then came to the sincere conclusion that HPB's elaborate exposition of
Anthropogenesis, in particular, was not primarily meant to be taken
*literally* by advanced students?

What would happen if many came to believe that the "biggest blind" of them
all is that "Globes," "Rounds," "Root Races" etc. are not to be taken as
actual "translifetime details," but rather, merely as symbolic
representations in the Grandest Allegory of all times?  What if the next
deeper layer of the "Principal Theosophical Doctrine" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE
is not found to be concerned with what might have happened pre- or
post-incarnation, but that it pertains to a hitherto largely "hidden"
psychogenetic ("psychomaturational") process in the life of each individual?

Even if it could be shown that such a new "shedding of an outer garment" had
much greater potential for the development of practical adeptship, how would
theosophical scholars greet a possible "dematerialization" of their painfully
acquired macro-nuts-and-bolts, now potentially "allegorical" knowledge?
  Would general acceptance require something more than someone's bringing
forth the right "Psychological Key," or would it be necessary to have the
Theosophical equivalent of Big Bang Two in order to blow the lock off
entirely?

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle