[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Distractions vs. ignorance (avidya)

Jan 30, 1999 05:56 AM
by Alpha (Tony)

>In a message dated 1/28/99 11:44:39 AM, Tony wrote:
><<A says: Because of Theosophy I am now able to have some understanding of
>Norse Mythology. I have just read a Norse myth, and because I have done some
>theosophical study, the myth wasn't just a tale, it had a deeper level of
>meaning to it. It was an allegory.
>B says:  Because of Norse mythology I am now able to have some understanding
>of Theosophy.>>
>This is a fine point Tony, and shows that people may have different methods.
>The one I propose is "A."  What I seem to read on this list, however, is a lot
>of something else.  It sounds to me (and I may well be mistaken) like this:
>"HPB has already had the final word on (fill in the blank) subject.  Don't
>even bother to read any Norse myths, because HPB goes farther."
>As a beginning student, that would have been Theosophical death.  I well
>remember the first time I read the S.D., and I was swimming in Odin this,
>Daiviprakriti that, Osiris and Prometheus and Buddha and Vasubandhu and
>Shankaracharya and Kiu-Te coming out my ears.  Without the background reading
>I've done on the topics HPB has mentioned, I wouldn't even be able to
>understand why her writings are important, or really even what they're saying.
>So yes, I think your option A is a very good one.  Read HPB, then read the
>material she is discussing, and then go back and read her again.
>Have I written anything different in the last two months?  Honestly?

Thanks Rich,

Honestly - it did seem you were writing something different, and what you
write in your penultimate paragraph isn't quite the way A was seeing it.
That example was specifically in relation to Norse myths.

 "Read HPB, then read the
>material she is discussing, and then go back and read her again."

It just isn't as simple as that, and you aren't saying that it is simple.
To give an example.  Take some seemingly rather irrelavent out of date
scientific statement in the SD.  It doesn't seem necessary to go to the
original material to try and understand it better.  But, because it is a
seemingly out of date statement, doesn't mean that it is not conveying
something significant about meditation, for example.  Sorry not to be able
to write it better. HPB was not allowed to give many things out, but this
doesn't necessarily mean that she can't cloth them in words that have
already been written.

Surely we can just agree to differ on this, that is if we do.

Lets be Rich in Theosophy!


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application