theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

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

RE: Quibbling over the meaning of words??

Jul 26, 2006 08:06 AM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck


7/26/2006 7:32 AM

		RE: Quibbling over the meaning of words??

		MASTERS and HPB


Dear Katy:

Have look at these statements:

-----------------------------------------------
1




AUTHORSHIP OF THE SECRET DOCTRINE .doc
=====================================


AUTHORSHIP OF SECRET DOCTRINE
A good deal has been said about the writing of Isis Unveiled, and later of
the Secret Doctrine, both by H. P. Blavatsky. A writer in the spiritualistic
journals took great pains to show how many books the first work seems to
quote from, and the conclusion to be arrived at after reading his diatribes
is that H.P.B. had an enormous library at her disposal, and of course in her
house, for she never went out, or that she had agents at great expense
copying books, or, lastly, that by some process or power not known to the
world was able to read books at a distance, as, for instance, in the Vatican
at Rome and the British Museum. The last is the fact. She lived in a small
flat when writing the first book and had very few works on hand, all she had
being of the ordinary common sort. She herself very often told how she
gained her information as to modern books. No secret was made of it, for
those who were with her saw day after day that she could gaze with ease into
the astral light and glean whatever she wanted. But in the early days she
did not say precisely to the public that she was in fact helped in that work
by the Masters, who gave from time to time certain facts she could not get
otherwise. The Secret Doctrine, however, makes no disguise of the real help,
and she asserts, as also many of us believe, that the Masters had a hand in
that great production. The letters sent to Mr. Sinnett formed the ground for
Esoteric Buddhism, as was intended, but as time went on it was seen that
some more of the veil had to be lifted and certain misconceptions cleared
up; hence the Secret Doctrine was written, and mostly by the Masters
themselves, except that she did the arranging of it.
For some time it was too much the custom of those who had received at the
hands of H.P.B. words and letters from her Masters to please themselves with
the imagination that she was no more in touch with the original fount, and
that, forsooth, these people could decide for themselves what was from her
brain and what from the Masters. But it is now time to give out a
certificate given when the Secret Doctrine was being written, a certificate
signed by the Masters who have given out all that is new in our theosophical
books. It was sent to one who had then a few doubts, and at the same time
copies were given from the same source to others for use in the future,
which is now. The first certificate runs thus:
I wonder if this note of mine is worthy of occupying a select spot with the
documents reproduced, and which of the peculiarities of the "Blavatskian"
style of writing it will be found to most resemble? The present is simply to
satisfy the Doctor that "the more proof given the less believed." Let him
take my advice and not make these two documents public. It is for his own
satisfaction the undersigned is happy to assure him that the Secret
Doctrine, when ready, will be the triple production of [here are the names
of one of the Masters and of H.P.B.] and _______ most humble servant,
[signed by the other.]
On the back of this was the following, signed by the Master who is mentioned
in the above:
If this can be of any use or help to _____, though I doubt it, I, the humble
undersigned Faquir, certify that the Secret Doctrine is dictated to [name of
H.P.B.], partly by myself and partly by my brother ______.
A year after this, certain doubts having arisen in the minds of individuals,
another letter from one of the signers of the foregoing was sent and reads
as follows. As the prophecy in it has come true, it is now the time to
publish it for the benefit of those who know something of how to take and
understand such letters. For the outside it will all be so much nonsense.
The certificate given last year saying the Secret Doctrine would be when
finished the triple production of [H.P.B.'s name], ________, and myself was
and is correct, although some have doubted not only the facts given in it
but also the authenticity of the message in which it was contained. Copy
this and also keep the copy of the aforesaid certificate. You will find them
both of use on the day when you shall, as will happen without your asking,
receive from the hands of the very person to whom the certificate was given,
the original for the purpose of allowing you to copy it; and then you can
verify the correctness of this presently forwarded copy. And it may then be
well to indicate to those wishing to know what portions in the Secret
Doctrine have been copied by the pen of [H.P.B.'s name] into its pages,
though without quotation marks, from my own manuscript and perhaps from
______, though the last is more difficult from the rarity of his known
writing and greater ignorance of his style. All this and more will be found
necessary as time goes on, but for which you are well qualified to wait.
ONE OF THE STAFF
Path, April, 1893
==================================
2

You ask about  HPB and her work.  She was emphatically not a
"shell."  She was an Adept and worked as such. 

 There are apparently times when an Adept can allow a Brother Adept to use
as their "vehicle" the body that one has to use in any one
incarnation.  But the Adept, "owner of the body"  does NOT lose
consciousness -- only "stands aside" for a while as HPB describes
it clearly.  

It is unimportant that you may interpret things you
study differently from myself.  That is always true among
students.  But trying to make statements fit one's prejudgments
is not part of the learning process,  as I see it.  No one can
afford to study Theosophy selectively and according to ones
predetermined aims, interests or prejudices.  Or that study will
prove only a mirror of the personal bias one has introduced and 
imposed.  All that has been excluded will be seen by others, who 
will conclude that the views and statements made by that individual 
are limited by his selected and personal "filter."

What is important is THEOSOPHY as a body of knowledge that we can
test independently.  Who or how it was recorded does not matter
in the least.  It is a record of IDEAS, as doctrines,  and a STATEMENT of
HISTORICAL FACTS.  

How else can the "golden grain" be sifted from the chaff of useless errors?

It is totally unimportant as to "who" did what in providing the
teachings of Theosophy.   

They are provided for us to study, check and verify on our own.  
Obviously while we may appreciate the statements that  HPB or the 
Masters made, who they were, and how they made them available has no 
bearing on the accuracy or the value of the information.

Olcott and others, who were contemporaries of HPB, and watched 
her at work, made a record of what they were interested in and saw.
  
That was the superficial, the physical objective side of the work.  
But they apparently were not able in all cases to go BELOW the 
events and ask themselves why things were done as they were.  
They got "stuck" on the wonder and the phenomenal side.  
They did not seem to value the profundity of the philosophy.

I would say we have an advantage.  That is because we can survey
and study the whole of the philosophy.  We are not bound by the
methods used (we were not there).  Hence we only have the record
of how others saw them being provided.  And from that, how  they drew their
conclusions -- correct or incorrect.  

If we use that (purely superficial view) as our "peg" of interest, we can
get hung up on that.  The question is how do we move on, how do we
universalize our outlook?  Others do not have our particular interest, and,
hence we ought to ask:  What is it that they may see that we are missing?
If we go at study that way, we can widen our view, and add theirs as a
partial approach to consider.  We also have to make sure that their view is
reasonable and impersonal.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone, is able to review independently
(unless we are Adepts and can read the Akasic record) the early
days and methods of communicating, nor is it at all important as
to who or why HPB  (or the Masters) did all she (or They) did.

She did it.   They did it.  It is for our benefit if we wish to
profit from it.  But it (Theosophy) was written for the world at large. In
this you will see that we build our own "barriers."  We seem to
find a "roost," and on those we may be establishing the "perches" of our
interest.  
They are only stages or steps, and as such:  Those if alone chosen, may
obscure
the whole picture.  We have to consider how to get around them.

Let us remember that theosophical truths are facts in Nature and
can be verified independently by all who are interested.  Hence
only those things that are universal, impartial, eternal, virtuous,
reasonable, and intuitional will be found to the "true at all times,
to all people, and in all places or areas."  They relate to the eternal
principles 
ATMA (the Higher Self) and BUDDHI (wisdom acquired from experience).  

We are the ones who can profit (from the recorded Message of Theosophy) if
we will, and, use what was taught.  BUT WE HAVE TO PROVE TO OURSELVES THAT
IT IS VALUABLE.  

No one can advance their view or stand as an "authority" for anyone.  To
seek for the "who" is unimportant and is only curiosity.  If any one of us
thinks that they know everything, or can stand in judgment over HPB and
Masters, then they are making a most serious blunder.  The work of an Adept
can only be checked and verified by another Adept who has a thorough
understanding of the fundamentals that Theosophy offers.  If we do not have
those, then we are only curious and not serious.  We have merely discovered
a new toy to amuse us for a while.

Can I assume that you really wish to probe deeper ?

May I offer as a concept:  As a fundamental idea we are told that the
CONSCIOUSNESS that we employ is unitary (for us, as we have each our own).
It derives directly from the ATMA  the Higher Self, which is One with all
ATMAN.  It animates successively Buddhi (wisdom) and Manas (the thinking
principle).  Manas offers a link of intelligence (of the powers of the
Higher Mind) to that Monadic intelligence that has developed through the
lower kingdoms until it has developed a "vehicle of matter" -- which is
sensitive enough to receive and mirror an aspect of BUDDHI-MANAS -- the
Higher Mind.  This "vehicle" is that aggregation of skandhas (living monads
themselves) which are drawn by our and their Karma around the developing
Monadic consciousness that is our  "Individual Self" and which we are able
to call here and now our Lower-Manasic self.  It is the brain-consciousness
and in each incarnation it is limited.  But, although limited, it has the
potentiality of contacting and linking itself to the Highest source (ATMA)
of its own consciousness --its HIGHER SELF.

This  mirror is, in each of us, that which has been called the Lower Mind or
Kama-Manas. But, note that along with that is also the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS
which pierces up and down the 7 planes of being and serves to uphold the
memory of the experiences on each of those planes."  ( Gita Notes  pp.
98-100)  The level of
Kama-Manas is one such level.   (see SD I 157-8, 181)

Therefore that which survives death is the immortal aspect of ourselves.
that grows constantly while the many changing personalities come and go,
fade or leave a favorable impress on the eternal EGO.

Turning now to some other remarks you make:  (see below) JEROME  wrote:

 Just a footnote on the way the S.D. was assembled.  HPB handed
Archibald  and Bertram  Keightley the  MSS of the SD  	SNIP


-----------------------------------------

I hope these help

Dallas

========================

-----Original Message-----
From:  On Behalf Of Cass Silva
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:18 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Quibbling over the meaning of words??

Hi Bill
Didn't the masters say somewhere that they co-wrote Isis and the SD with
HPB. Surely this implies some sort of contact?
Cass

Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@earthlink.net> wrote: Daniel, unless you assert
with absolute certain knowledge the fact that 
"HPB was in contact with the Masters," Carlos will judge your statement 
as a LIE.

Do you see the difference, Daniel? 

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far a I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

--Robert Frost, 1916







[Back to Top]


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