Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00181)

Dallas: "For this, I rely, almost exclusively,
on the early literature of Theosophical living Movement as
provided by H P B"
And next Dallas: "let's get off the "history" controversies"
Dallas I don't know if you realise that there is a discrepancy here.
First you claim to rely on "the early litterature of Theosophical 
living Movement as provided by H P B " but this is only selectivly  
true as has been shown in recent weeks. 
There has been an evolution of differrent ideas and practices from 
the early "occult" in the TS with drugs and mirror gazing
(and the results of that in Blavatsky's writings/views), to later 
times where there still was the astral projection in India but the 
mirrorgazing started to be replaced by a similar but slightly 
different teqnique, to more changes later. Plus Blavatsky's writings 
themselve that where an acumulation of quotes from books of earlier
"theosophists" long before Blavatsky's time, that she borrowed from, 
including various ofthen semi-scientific, litterature of the 19th 
century. And from various occultists like for example P.B.Randolph 
as we have most recently seen.
You and others on this list know that she copied many hunderds of 
quotes from books without accounting for them, but still provided for 
the second 40% of her work the remaining names and sources of 
quotes.In other words she was for a large degree open about something 
that later theosophists like yourself suddenly are not so open about 
that you have to claim it all originated, let stand,"started" with 
her and Olcott. The litterature she quotes (although mostly re-
prints from the 19th century) dated back to up to severral hunderd 
years of various "theosophists"before, but then again not "many 
tausend" of years before, that is a fantasy.
And next, afther this coup of falsifying history, you try to cover 
yourself by quickly eliminating the evidence, and say "let's get off 
the "history" controversies."
I know you are a moral person Dallas but don't tell me now you are 
starting the con of the pea under the nut shell, of "first you see it 
next you don't". That is something I'd maybe expect from Daniel, but 
not from you Dallas, you surprise me here.
A study of Blavatsky's theosophy is simple not possible without 
agknowledging her sources becouse it is one and the same, she added 
some things of her own, probably an overall, invented, structure that 
are not likely to have come from a K.H. and Morya, although she might 
have had some more mundane helpers most of wich is difficult to 
prove or disprove, but the quotes from various books are there, that 
is the only thing that can be proven. 

Reg. "Later students have, after the death of H P B's body, issued a 
sea of their speculations." I must confess that I am not a personall 
fan of many of the neo Theosophical teachers myself, somehow I like 
to wade trough Blavatsky and Olcott's odysee, but that is a question 
of personal taste.
>From a historical point of view and in common sense fairness I must 
say that the long (verry long) list of other contenders for cosmic 
and hierarchical inspirations (cons and non –cons, they are 
difficult to discern from each other), have just as much right to ad 
their fantasies and constructs. I think we can learn from all of 
them, as long we don't get caught in the fundamentalists game.
And not wanting to trow out the child with the bathwater, yes there 
is the practical application of some of these ideas that need to be 
left space to evolve, in other words since there is both something 
valid and antiquated in all of them, the same continuos to happen 
today, there are searchers for truth everywhere that might not be 
perfect but need to be heard and one can just as one can learn from 
the trial and tribulations of Blavatsky and Olcott, also leave 
space for what is happening now. 
What you are trying to do it seems, with all your good intentions, is 
say look here, this (it sounds to me Dallas what you are bringing is 
verry much what was created by the Blavatsky Lodge in England,  
adjusting early theosophy for consumption in the UK, and next the 
early 20th century world at large.) is the way I believe it is, now 
let me tell you about it and convince you, the various theosophical 
lists.
In conclusion therefore (again, with all due respect for your obvious 
writing talents, and ability to be a good and dedicated preacher)  
essentially , Blavatsky's ideas of Atma,Maya, and her transmigration
of souls are not as much Oriental or even Cabalistic or Platonic 
only, but typical 19th century constructions. And one finds this out ,
I'd say only, if one study's the obvious sources that as Steve again 
demonstrated by means of recent discoveries, is still possible to 
do. That way one can learn to understand Blavatsky's real
theosophy, including along the way hopefully how she came to glue it 
all together and if some of that glue was due to looking in mirrors , 
taking drugs, and or watever else.
I hope you join us in this adventure of discovery Dallas.
 
Brigitte

PS I reject the masturbation and sex charges (expecially the sex with 
animals) on this list. I think things like that if they existed (also 
drinking alchoholic beverages and such nonsense) are private and 
unless we are dealing with obvious tantric practices wich I don't
see is the case with Blavatsky, are entirely irrelevant. Another 
matter could be regarding if it is true that there was a child with 
Metrovich for the reason that (if true) this would explain that 
Blavatsky later could still have contact with him, dead or alive, and 
she might have set him up as one her "Masters", or I think "Brothers" 
she called it that time.



--- In theos-talk@y..., <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Wednesday, January 09, 2002
> 
> 
> What is MAYA, and What is involved and included
> in it ?
> 
> Dear Friends:
> 
> 
> To make myself as clear as possible, let me say that I try to
> avoid speculations.
> 
> Yet, when I do, I try to identify it as such.
> 
> I try to present what I have gleaned and understand from the
> Philosophy of THEOSOPHY. For this, I rely, almost exclusively,
> on the early literature of Theosophical living Movement as
> provided by H P B and her contemporaries. Later students have,
> after the death of H P B's body, issued a sea of their
> speculations. Those, when considered, ought to be compared (for
> logic and consistency) with her record. I would identify her
> writings as "original Theosophy."
> 
> But before we begin let me observe this:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 
> Frankly, let's get off the "history" controversies. They merely
> accentuate differences of opinion, and do not solve anything.
> The past has been, and we cannot alter it. It is obvious that
> individual views will differ, but no one "wins" in such matters.
> The vies of each individual will remain theirs and only they can
> alter them. No one "wins" in such situations.
> 
> What I do suggest is that if one ascertains the ethical and moral
> basis for living and for conjoined evolution much more will be
> achieved. This means we have to learn to differentiate the
> "Doctrine of the Heart" from the "eye doctrine of literalism.
> 
> Can this be started?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> Such statements as she makes, have been ascribed by her to her
> own "Teachers" -- The Mahatmas, Adepts, and Gnyanis.
> 
> We may or may not "believe" that there exist Divine Men-minds who
> have survived enormous periods of time, and whose work, is to be
> "historians," "Witnesses on the Scene," of the movement of
> cycles in time and "duration," as NATURE propels evolution again
> and yet again. As I see it, we have here a condensed report from
> the Observers in the Past, and that report covers an immense
> period in years and Time.
> 
> Shall we reject it, or laugh at it without consideration? Do we
> hold the short 300 to 400 year period of Scientific study and
> theorizing about an unknown "past" -- using the gradual academic
> independence from Church oversight, as superior to this ancient
> "Report?" Or, shall we familiarize ourselves with it, and see
> whether it has any merit? Each Scholar who publishes either
> reports on his observations or adds his opinions and speculations
> in regard to their causes. In any case, he or she exposes
> themselves to peer review.
> 
> They (the Ancient Teachers and Tutors of Mankind) are those,
> classified by the world as the prophets, and originators (or
> reformers) of creeds, religions and civilizations in the past.
> 
> Why would there not be a central academy, a college, where a
> record of events is preserved? H P B wrote of this in ISIS
> UNVEILED, in Vol. II, pp 98 - 103, and she also refers at length
> to this in the prefatory pages of both ISIS UNVEILED and SECRET
> DOCTRINE. Why should Wise Men of the past, such as Krishna,
> Buddha Gautama, Jesus of Nazareth, Pythagoras, Lao-Tse,
> Confucius, Plato, Hermes, Zoroaster, Shankaracharya, Quetzal
> Coatl, Paracelsus, Count St. Germain, Mesmer, H.P.Blavatsky, and
> a host of others not continue t exist -- still very much alive ?
> And why should they not continue Their work on other projects
> where duty demands their presence? In most cases the record of
> their reform, of their work and statements can be cross compared,
> to verify a similarity or identity of expression. Is this not
> what the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY was established to do ? You might
> ask me why humanity was seemingly abandoned by them to their own
> devices. My answer would be to ask us all to observe how we
> conduct academic study -- the student, from the earliest classes
> in any education system is given latitude by their tutors to
> educate themselves. Supervision is more intense at the primary
> stages, but gradually slackens and disappears. In the matter of
> Theosophy. Let me observe that 3 "Fundamental Principles" are
> deemed significant by Mme. Blavatsky as a starting bas. She
> outlines these in The SECRET DOCTRINE in Vol. 1, between pp. 14
> to 19. However, if one remain skeptical of their own innate
> immortality, much of the Theosophical reasoning and logic will
> lose its force on a mind that has adopted the concept that the
> life being lived is isolated, and physical death ends it all.
> 
> Let me place here a few statements by H P B that clarify what I
> am trying to convey:
> 
> ==========
> 
> "...the undersigned accepts for her views and
> walk in life no authority dead or living, no system of philosophy
> or religion but one--namely, the esoteric teachings of ethics and
> philosophy of those she calls Masters--answers have to be given
> strictly in accordance with these teachings...his first duty is
> to be ever ready to help if he can, without stopping to
> philosophize...there may be those who are starving for truth, in
> every department of the science of nature, and who consequently
> are yearning to learn the esoteric views about "cosmology, the
> evolution of man and of the Universe." ... what I do believe in
> is:
> 
> (1), the unbroken oral teachings revealed by living *divine* men
> during the infancy of mankind to the elect among men;
> 
> (2), that it has reached us unaltered; and
> 
> (3), that the MASTERS are thoroughly versed in the science based
> on such uninterrupted teaching.."
> (Blavatsky: Collected Writings, Vol. 11, pages 466-467)
> 
> 
> In 1877 in ISIS UNVEILED, H P B wrote:
> 
> "The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a
> somewhat intimate acquaintance with Eastern Adepts and study of
> their SCIENCE ... we came into contact with certain men, endowed
> with such mysterious powers and such profound knowledge that we
> may truly designate them as the sages of the Orient. To their
> instructions we lent a ready ear ... " ( ISIS I, v, vi)
> Caps added.
> 
> 
> "... FROM THE FIRST AGES OF MAN, THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF ALL
> THAT WE ARE PERMITTED TO KNOW ON EARTH WAS IN THE SAFE KEEPING OF
> THE ADEPTS of the sanctuary ... those guardians of the PRIMITIVE
> DIVINE REVELATION, who had solved every problem that is within
> the grasp of human intellect, were bound together by a universal
> freemasonry of science and philosophy, which formed one unbroken
> chain around the globe." ISIS I, 37-38, Caps added
> 
> 
> "There are, scattered throughout the world, a handful of
> thoughtful and solitary students, who pass their lives in
> obscurity, far from the rumors of the world, studying the great
> problems of the physical and spiritual universes. They have their
> SECRET RECORDS in which are preserved the fruits of the
> scholastic labors of the LONG LINE of recluses whose successors
> they are ... " ISIS I, 557. Caps added
> 
> "Thus is it that all the religious monuments of old, in whatever
> land or under whatever climate, ARE THE EXPRESSION OF THE SAME
> IDENTICAL THOUGHTS, THE KEY TO WHICH IS IN THE ESOTERIC DOCTRINE
> ... And the clergy of every nation, though practicing rites and
> ceremonies which may have differed externally, had evidently been
> initiated into the same traditional mysteries which were taught
> all over the world ..." ( ISIS I, 561)
> 
> =========[
> 
> 
> May I, then, offer the following for consideration :
> 
> 
> 1) the ABSOLUTE refers to an eternal background. It is
> neither manifested nor non-manifested, but both simultaneously
> and essentially BEHIND those, which being dual contrasts come and
> go like the great periods of time called Maha-Kalpas
> (S D II 68-70)
> 
> 
> 2) Emerging from the ABSOLUTE periodically are periods of
> manifestation, followed by periods of equal length of
> non-manifestation. The "gaps" are contiguous when considered by
> the embodied mind which is limited by its environment. But the
> "embodied mind" is usually unable to say anything about periods
> of "non-manifestation" as it is "asleep."
> 
> 
> 3) Our physical brain is only (we assume this) the seat of
> our intellect during the time we are alive in this present body.
> 
> 
> 4) Our mental condition during the after-death period has
> been narrated (or described) by Men-minds that have been through
> this condition without loosing consciousness ( I would agree that
> failing any memory at present in this brain-mind of mine as a
> "personal" experience, this is accepted by me on the basis of its
> reasonableness. I apply to it what I can of logic and agree it
> appears reasonable -- but yet to be actually experiences AND
> REMEMBERED).
> 
> 
> 5) similarly for the periods of non-manifestation, and the
> concept of the ABSOLUTE as a changeless background [like
> SPACE--which is always there -- whether it is "filled" with
> physically manifesting atoms, or crammed with non-physical
> atoms -- like the hypothetical "black matter" of astro-physics ]
> 
> 
> 6) Both Science and Theosophy hold the concept that the atoms
> are Forces or Fields of Force, and their existence is not to be
> limited or determined by any instrumentation so far devised. So
> atoms ( and atomic sub-components) are demonstrable as necessary
> concepts --- and some leave trace evidence of their presence --
> but are not provable by our so-far devised instrumentation.
> 
> 
> 7) Compounds of all kinds perish. And Buddhism is
> apparently correct in calling all "manifested" things "maya" or
> illusions. Yet the Power or the Force that underlies the "atom"
> or its qualities and properties show there is something actual,
> real and permanent there -- and further implies that the laws of
> its Nature exist and are integral to the general laws of "life"
> we know of during the present period of manifestation. One would
> conclude there are permanent, and transitory realities, and those
> are perceived by beings who have equivalent "senses," and are
> able to perceive, or deduce, their actuality.
> 
> 
> 8) As to corroborating statements, thoughts, concepts --
> since Theosophy is not at all interested in being either
> "pioneer," or the "first" to lay out any concept, if accepts such
> proofs and corroboration as arises. And it adds this to its ever
> growing store of proofs, demonstrations and conceptual
> constructs.
> 
> 
> THEOSOPHY is a historical record of the oldest as well as the
> current conditions in all departments of Nature. It describes
> the past and also the present Laws that operate in Nature and
> show it to be a sensitive cooperative, which cares and supports
> all of its milliards of components.
> 
> I states that each is an "immortal entity" -- a Force of
> individual power, with the right to work and live where nature
> has placed it. Each then, as seen by Theosophy, has a duty to
> perform in its place, and all, taken together, work towards the
> goal of ultimate Spiritual Perfection.
> 
> This goal is not for any one, but is common. It is the one that
> draws all the many components, eventually back into a unity,
> where they continue to work and assist others of their "brothers"
> who face the path of progress they have mastered.
> 
> Theosophy as a living historical and ever-growing record,
> welcomes all contributions. It to add or adjust such evidence as
> is continuously presented, use questions and criticism as fuel
> that will improve the records of the past, and add to them
> present experience. It seeks to provide a basis for all
> considerations and ideas, and reflecting always the information
> so far adduced, it seeks to provide accuracy in response to all.
> 
> That is as I understand Theosophy to be.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> =========================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bri_mue [mailto:bri_mue@y...]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:08 AM
> To: theos-talk@y...
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Atma is Maya
> 
> Dallas: "Something has to "bridge the gap"
> 
> Brigitte: Dallas: "..."
> 
> But Dallas, that means the universe is not forever if there are
> gaps
> and it becomes like a jig saw puzzle that seem more a construct
> of the
> intellect than anything else.
> 
> =============================================
> 
> DTB What is "behind" the Universe? What kind of pattern is
> it organized on? How and When was that pattern established?
> What kind of Cause or Source is conceivable? Supposing there was
> in fact a series of UNIVERSES -- would not the time frames there
> be different. We for instance cannot conceive of living at the
> speed and pace of a "sub-atomic particle (or wave)", nor can we
> conceive of our own SPIRITUAL LIVES being so extended in time
> that we actually see the many revolutions of what we call today
> the Stars and Galaxies of our surrounding AEther. We are very
> limited to our own sphere of experience and watch the changes
> around us. But our MINDS are capable of thinking in terms that
> are vastly different from our present limits. Why is that ? Is
> it experience, fancy, speculation, vague hopes
> semi-materialized -- or is it indicative our Mind's capacity to
> perceive on other planes of experience and transpose visions or
> ideas ?
> 
> How does the "intellect" make "constructs? Why ? Is it under
> the impulse of "desire and fancy? Or is their potentially an
> actuality out there ? Azimov speculated freely on these matters,
> why should you (or I) be debarred from comparing our
> speculations? Are there any rules concerning this or previous
> experiences we might be able to use?
> 
> ========================================
> 
> Of course the intellect, just like the physical body, is afraid
> of eternity, cannot comprehend it, why ? Because the brain, the
> seat of the intellect and the physical body, are intended to
> die, become compost just like the leaves of a three do each year,
> and change (forget), in order to be forever.
> 
> =========================================
> 
> DTB You really ought to read the KEY TO THEOSOPHY. There
> the difference between the physical brain mind -- the intellect,
> and the PERMANENT THINKER is made clear. I think you are saying
> in error that the physical body is afraid of "eternity." It
> would rather, become "eternal." the problem is How? Yes the
> physical atoms of the physical body are dispersed at death. But
> we rarely ask how it is that they are assembled? Who, or what,
> has the power to galvanize them into a coherent and useful
> assemblage -- each atom, molecule, cell, and organ in the right
> place for a ruling EGO or "intellect" t inhabit, educate, and
> then use. We observe the process, but we have no full
> explanation for its evolution, and actual being..
> 
> ================================================
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang theory made famous since 1931 is in essence a bit
> like the beginning/end "gap" universe a la Dallas, SD, making for
> a
> good "hall of mirrors" game.(sounds like you will have fun after
> you die).
> 
> 
> ========================================================
> 
> DTB The "BIG BANG" needs a cause. Why not view it as though
> it was a change the simultaneously occurred everywhere. ASLEEP
> to AWAKE -- everything all at once. We have an example in
> super-cooled liquids -- when the container is tapped there is
> instantaneous and total crystallization. In The SECRET DOCTRINE
> Vol. I this is explained. [ pp. 287, 268, 238 ] The "Hall of
> Mirrors" (which I have seen) is a great illustration. Who turns
> on the light after the change of scenery? It requires a HUMAN
> MIND to do this at the right time.
> 
> Theosophical metaphysics conceives of a number of eternals that
> function and are consciously aware during th great PRALAYA when
> the average consciousness is dormant and at rest. But reading
> The SECRET DOCTRINE you will notice this. A good INDEX to The
> SECRET DOCTRINE is very helpful AFTER one has read and studied
> it.
> 
> ==========================================
> 
> In fact the inventor of the big bang theory was a Belgian priest
> called P.G. Lemaitre, and I suspect he might have been
> subconsciously influenced by the bible that as is known has a
> creation myth which in character doesn't differ that much from
> Blavatsky's SD.
> 
> In 1929 on the other hand Fritz Zwicky who taught Astro Physics
> at the University of Pasadena (no not Perucker's place) already
> laid
> the foundation for the now widely accepted scientific knowledge
> that the Universe is without beginning and end, more like the
> Buddhist
> world view that doesn't need a personal God (make that" God's" in
> the SD) to talk away beginnings and endings plus gaps in
> between.
> 
> =====================================
> 
> DTB Perhaps he culled the idea from The SECRET DOCTRINE --
> but that does not matter as neither "God" nor "Gods" ever act
> arbitrarily. If They are indeed the ultimate expression we can
> conceive of a SUPREME SPIRITUAL ONENESS that UNITES lT into a
> WHOLE, then, the question of identity will never be resolved by
> personal names or designations. They are unimportant. What does
> emerge from such a concept is the Theosophical description of the
> UNIVERSAL MONAD and from it in infinite division the ocean of
> MONADS which fill all space. It is their evolution that is
> significant.
> 
> I have puzzled over an ancient verse, you will find it in SECRET
> DOCTRINE II 176 at the top: "Desire first arose in IT , that
> was the primal germ of mind...." I think it is relevant to this
> kind of research, although the solution will not be rapid. It
> tends to take one out of the "personality" limitations of
> mortality, into the realm (or plane if one pleases) of causes and
> the finer forces of energy which underlie physical constructs. A
> whole fresh realm of discovery, and "speculation."
> 
> Frankly, let's get off the "history" controversies. They merely
> accentuate differences of opinion, and do not solve anything.
> The past has been, and we cannot alter it. It is obvious that
> individual views will differ, but no one "wins" in such matters.
> The vies of each individual will remain theirs and only they can
> alter them. No one "wins" in such situations.
> What I do suggest is that if one ascertains the ethical and moral
> basis for living and for conjoined evolution much more will be
> achieved. This means we have to learn to differentiate the
> "Doctrine of the Heart" from the "eye doctrine of literalism.
> 
> Can this be started?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ===================================
> 
> 
> 
> Brigitte
> 
> --- In theos-talk@y..., <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> > Wednesday, January 09, 2002
> >
> > Dear J---y:
> >
> > Of course you are correct. The proviso causing an exception is
> > the visualization of TIME. DURATION is hard to deal with, when
> > our experience in the here and now is so limited and TIME
> appears
> > like a thief to steal our "time" away.
> >
> > I sure do get it:
> >
> > When limited in any ONE MANIFESTATION ( Manvantara or
> > Maha-Manvantara) all DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE MAYAVIC.
> >
> > H.P.Blavatsky in The SECRET DOCTRINE says: S D I 54-5 and
> > also in the footnote fn (54)
> >
> > "The idea that things can cease to exist and still BE, is a
> > fundamental one in eastern Psychology. Under this apparent
> > contradiction in terms, there rests a fact of Nature to realise
> > which in the mind, rather than to argue about words, is the
> > important thing....[ here H P B uses the question as to whether
> > the gases H and O are abolished when H2O water is formed is
> > discussed] ..."existence as water may be said to be, for O and
> > H, a state of Non-being which is "more real being" than their
> > existence as gases; and it may faintly symbolize conditions of
> > the Universe when it goes to sleep or ceases to be, during the
> > "Nights of Brahma"- to awaken or reappear again, when the dawn
> of
> > the new Manvantara recalls it to what we call existence."
> >
> > "Hence non-being is "ABSOLUTE Being," in esoteric philosophy.
> In
> > the tenets of the latter even Adi-Budha (first or primeval
> > wisdom) is, WHILE MANIFESTED, IN ONE SENSE an illusion, Maya,
> > since all the gods, including Brahma, have to die at the end of
> > the "Age of Brahma;" the abstraction called PARABRAHM
> > alone--whether at we call if Ensoph, or Herbert Spencer's
> > Unknowable--being "the One Absolute" Reality. The One
> secondless
> > Existence is ADWAITA, "Without a Second," and all the rest is
> > Maya, teaches the Adwaita philosophy." S D I 54 fn. [ also
> S
> > D I 265 ]
> >
> > I was sure you knew this reference and this is what I have been
> > writing about all this time. Something has to "bridge the gap"
> > between periods of manifestation? Not physical but ENERGY,
> FORCE
> > modified by LIVING EXPERIENCE -- INDIVIDUALITY to me, survives.
> > So does H P B say this in her article ISIS UNVEILED AND THE
> > VISHISTADVAITA. THEOSOPHIST, Jan, 1886 ( H P B Articles III p
> > 265.)
> >
> > But I do not find any statement (have you one ?) which says
> ATMA
> > is Maya.
> >
> > [ S D I p. 570-1 says ATMA alone remains]
> >
> > [S D I p 193 top, it states that ATMAN passes into NON-BEING,
> > which is absolute Being...the purely Nirvanic state is a
> passage
> > of spirit back to the ideal abstraction of Be-ness which has no
> > return to the plane on which our Universe is accomplishing its
> > cycle."]
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Dallas
> >
> > CUT