Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00001)

In a message dated 11/29/98 8:57:37 PM, Jerry wrote
>
>
>The exoteric idea of karma alias causality IS deterministic
>and is exactly what chaos theory means by determinism
>(predictable because every action leads to an effect and
>every action has a cause for ever). There is NO pretext.
>And, as far as I am concerned, it is you people who see
>karma as deterministic who are evading the real issue.
>Furthermore, just what the hell is "the Theosophical point
>of view?"  (cap T here, please).  HPB? Judge? Besant?
>G de P? etc. I have been under the impression (wrong?)
>that there are exoteric teachings (easy to understand surface
>teachings) and esoteric teachings (much deeper and
>even paradoxical at times). I grant that karma as deterministic
>(meaning that the future continues forever as the effect of
>the past and is fully predictable if we only had more data)
>can be found in the Theosophical literature, especially in
>Judge who taught little esotericism (IMO). But the idea
>of chaos or unpredictability (i.e., that the future is a
>realm of possibilities) is also found between the lines
>of HPB's writings together with the idea of inherent human
>limits (which she calls Rings-Pass-Not). Calling one
>or the other viewpoint (ie., either exoteric or esoteric)
>"real" Theosophy is very misleading because it is NOT
>an either or situation. Thus, I have to insist that what I
>am saying is just as "Theosophical" as what anyone
>else is saying.

Oh yeah.  The above paragraph makes as much sense as the rest of your
misinterpretations of theosophy and the denigration of credibility of its
teachers.  There is only ONE interpretation of the theosophical teaching.
And, that is the one transmitted by HPB in the Secret Doctrine and in her
other writings, as well as in the writings of her direct student/associate,
WQJ.

You can argue with all the other later re-interpreters as you like, or with
the other so called Masters of exoteric Buddhism, but, in spite of your
insistence on your infallibility in these matters, you cannot argue--from the
flimsy, unstudied ground you are obviously coming from--with the first release
of the Esoteric Doctrine to the world at large.  There is not one book of
writings on Buddhism or Vedanta that didn't come AFTER the Secret Doctrine as
presented in the Book of Dzyan and thoroughly interpreted in the attached
commentaries.

So, get off it--until you get onto it.

LHM