Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00152)

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:

<there is a lot of cuts>

> >What I intended to communicate is that theosophy cannot be all things for
> >all people. It does NOT embrace teachings of people like A.Cr. It includes a
> >very clear, distinct perspective on white vs. black magic, evil, and so
> >forth, and it is provable.
>
> Do you mean that it is provable that the teachings of theosophy have
> this clear distinction?  If so, then of course *this* can be proved.
> What cannot be "proved" is that these theosophical teachings are totally
> correct.

Yes, this is what I meant, that is 'the teachings of theosophy have this
clear distinction.' Seems to be a banality, but (1) is not so evident for
some theosophists, and (2) has some some important implications.

As to 'proving' the theosophical teachings, it looks like the only thing
that has been proven on this discussion list is that they cannot be proved,
so please give me some idea of what kind of proof you expect. On my side,
I believe that one may get all the neccessary proofs if one cares to do
meditation and make contact with one's higher self (aka the Self, soul,
spirit, atman). No contact with the Self, no proofs are possible.

> >The Ageless Wisdom is the light of your, my, and everybody else's higher
> >self, that's why it is so uniform from man to man and throughout the ages.
> >Being awakened, it creates a sense of DIRECTION urging everybody to move
> >in the SAME direction--from darkness to light.
>
> This is *your* opinion about an Ageless Wisdom understood from *your*
> perspective.  I too believe that there is an Ageless Wisdom, but I doubt
> the exactitude of its application as you appear to describe it.

Again, all perspectives (including mine) are secondary things. If there
is underlying spiritual experience, all perspectives are just means to
to approximately shape the intrinsically inexpressible experience and
communicate it to others. So it would be a good idea not to adhere too
closely to perspectives. Could we please discuss the Ageless Wisdom
rather than perspectives on it?

> To follow (I hope) your approach:
>
> IF the Ageless Wisdom is 100% available and 100% able to be understood
> by incarnate human beings, THEN we need to watch out!

Re: your IFs.

Enlightened people are used to say it IS available and never was
unavailable. To think otherwise means creating self-imposed barriers.
That's a standard statement found in many spiritual books.

It remains to be seen what you mean by 'understanding.' If
you mean intellectual understaning, the answer would be: "no, we cannot
understand it." Proof: Christian theology.


> IF the percentage of availability is less than 100%, and incarnate human
> ability to understand it is also less than 100% - THEN we still need to
> watch out!
>
> Part of your point (I think) is that such people as Crowley
> misinterpreted and/or misunderstood the Wisdom, creating confusion and
> distress for many students.

That's not my point. I believe that those who, like Cr., consciously
rejected the Light and collaborated with the Darkness, do not have any
contact with their higher selves and consequently have no access to the
Ageless Wisdom. Due to persistence of their evil will, they may learn
some technical occult secrets, but that's knowledge of matter (in
its subtle gradations), not the Ageless Wisdom which is the knowledge of
spirit.

> However, it may also be true (another implicit "if") that the
> transmitters of the Wisdom may also have misinterpreted and/or
> misunderstood the Wisdom in varying degrees.  This latter scenario seems
> to fit the evidence available.  A good example from theosophical history
> is Leadbeater's description of life on Mars (CWLMARS.TXT) in the HISTORY
> directory in my homepage "Directory of Goodies" structure.

Yes, it's quite possible that the Ageless Wisdom may get distorted by the
minds of its transmitters. A good example is what Gourdjieff called
'silly monks'--they may get into touch with the higher planes, but when
they get back to the vale of life, their revelations translate into
futile Christian babble or absolutely useless devotional stuff.

As to Leadbeater, you may wish to know that Master D.K. stated that
writings by L. (and other theosophical writers, except HPB, Subba Row, a
few books by A.Besant, a very few books by Mabel Collins, some books by
Anne Kingsford, plus some other exceptions) are based on his ASTRAL
visions and therefore are untrustworthy.

Max