Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00484)

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>
> June 20th
>
> Dallas offers some more quotes for consideration from original
> Theosophical sources:

Dear Dallas:
I am quickly going to try to re-write a couple of these quotations in
the hopes of illustrating part of the problems recently discussed (lack
of new members, perceived personal conflicts, lack of universal
acceptance)

> "Whoever wants to see the real Mahatma, must use his intellectual
> sight.  He must so elevate his Manas [Mind] that its perceptions
> will be clear and all mists created by Maya [illusion] must be
> dispelled.  His vision will then be bright and he will see the
> "Mahatmas" wherever he may be, for, being merged into the 6th
> [Buddhi-wisdom] and the 7th [Atma--spirit] principles, which are
> ubiquitous and omnipresent, the "Mahatmas" may be said to be
> everywhere."
>   "Mahatmas and Chelas" -- THEOSOPHIST July, 1884,
>   HPB Articles,  [ULT Edn. Vol.  I, p. 294 ]
"All who desire experience with the universal, an understanding of the
meaning of being, will gain insight by using more than their simple
physical senses.  Freeing the mind to embrace more than the physical
will bring a clarity of perception that will dispell the bounds of
illusion.  The resulting expansion in perception enables the seeker to
experience what culminates in knowledge of the one truth that is
ubiquitous and omnipresent.  Transcending Maya by unbounding the Manas
and hence experiencing the 6th and 7th principles."

HPB's terms with which I have problems:
*real* (the real Mahatma - implies only one way of experiencing the
truth)
*his intellectual sight* (very off-putting, implies an intellectual
process and provides vulnerability for universal acceptance)
the word *must* in every instance
*elevate* (linear, implies upwards only, and precludes all those
experiences of bringing the divine down to the phsyical, the circle of
life, the spiral of knowledge)
*mists* (dispell the mists - in antiquity many insights and transforming
experiences were heralded by mists, still are)
*his vision will then be bright* (vision meaning what?  bright being
only one shade of state and *dark* providing as much *vision* as light
in appropriate instances)
And finally I had to read it 3 times to be sure if it meant that the
Mahatmas were merged in the 6th and 7th principles or the seeker was,
and if the writer had experienced this for sure or was suggesting that
it "may" be so.  Of course, if I had read more about esoteric Buddhism
and other related ideas, understanding this quotation would be easier.
But here's the rub....these things do not grab me, I do not feel a
connection either current or past lives, so I seek not in detail on that
path and the terminology is overwhelming, complex, boring, disconnected
from my daily life.  This does not mean that I discount it, rather that
I leave it to those who do choose it, believing that all paths lead to
the same one truth.

> "Most of us believe in the survival of the Spiritual Ego, in
> Planetary spirits and "Nirmanakayas," those great ADEPTS of the
> past ages, who, renouncing their right to Nirvana, remain in our
> spheres of being, not as "spirits" but as complete human Beings.
> Save their corporeal, visible envelope, which they leave behind,
> they remain as they were, in order to help poor humanity, as far
> as can be done without sinning against KARMIC LAW.
 I'm sorry (for taking up time, not sorry for being myself) I may be
dumb, but this passage is a great example of one in which I perceive a
direct contradiction, unless I start changing the words ........
"Except for their original physical suitcase, which they shed" maybe.
I mean I get frustrated and want to say "spit it out and say what you
mean".  What *is* the difference, in this context, between a Spirit and
a complete human Being without a physical body and a Nirmanakaya and the
truth energy in everything?  And, how is it possible to help poor
humanity without sinning against Karmic Law, except to remain available
and approachable when called upon and why not do that from Nirvana?
And, if it is such a great renunciation and self-sacrifice to "give up
Nirvana" for this service to humanity, the basic tenet may be incorrect?
And, if help is there in this form, then it would seem that all who seek
by this theosophical path would benefit from seeing and communicating
with these spirits.  If not, living the theosophy becomes that of
accepting that some chosen ones do and others follow in some judgemental
like vicariously experienced existance?  And, no-one believes they are
"poor humanity" until someone tells them so and then follows a "chicken
and egg" like viscous-circle thing that many humans simply opt out of!

> "...right thought must precede right speech and right
> action...what ever conditions exist were produced by you...Do not
> attach yourself to any particular form of result.  Leave results
> to the Law."
> FP,  p. 3

"Leave results to the Law"  No way!  Not attaching oneself to any
PERCEIVED result - good advice, but not trying to see and understand the
results and to be part of the process by learning from experience and
changing actions that modify speech that unlock new thoughts that
precede new speech and manifest new actions that create new
circumstances that .......
Now, one could take the Book and sit on a mountain top until one gets
right thought and then let it go to the Universe, but in my view, to do
that and anything like it is to preclude this thing called Life.  Life
is in the plan, so why develop an answer that negates it's major part in
the process.

> "...good motive without knowledge makes sorry work
> sometimes...our
> best safeguard is an unselfish desire to benefit others...Thought
> is the plane of action."
> FP,  pp. 4, 7
Having a "safeguard" is a bounding (and often binding) mechanism.  By
allowing this concept to enter the process, one immediately creates
bounds on purity, transformation and transcendence.  Why create a hole
and put oneself in it to make the climb twice as long (so to speak).  An
unselfish desire to benefit others is a poor starting point if one is to
find the truth.  A selfish desire to know oneself, who is one of the
others, provides the knowledge to automate the motives and clarify the
thoughts that benefits onself and the others inseparably.  One may "do
for others" as an event in the process of discovering the truth in
oneself.  All who are living are seeking the truth in some way.  Life
*is* a search for understanding.  One can deny it, pretend it will go
away, slow it down, do it now and then between purely physical pursuits,
do it 50/50 with the physical, or pursue it 100%, and all the
permutations of, but one cannot escape it.  I believe that the whole
process is speeded up by one factor - FREEDOM, and I believe humans know
that instinctively.

>From one who finds HPB et al interesting, motivated by good, and
probably transcended, but left us with a verbosity that would currently
bound my mind and "soul" if I let it.  No disrespect to them and anyone
living the theosophy, as you well know.
Let's put it like this.....when my time comes to know and be in the
truth, I'll be me in it, and no one else's concepts will suffice, and
yet everyone's concepts will be.  The very fact that I gave in to the
temptation to analyze and modify your quotations means I'm nowhere near
that state yet, eh?
Cheers
Annette