RE: Is Blavatasky time-appropriate?
- Jan 9 2003
Baraka I understand -- the force of the PRESENCE. -- and the
appropriate way in which a special situation is handled. And this is
no longer apparent after time has passed. Only the words remain and
become subject to opinion and interpretation. This is the fate of all
As an avowed "eternalist" I look for, and to, those fundamental
concepts that underlie or persist -- and to those I apply the term:
LAW and Laws. Our world and universe are full of those. Some may
consider some of the following to be metaphysics.
I also call them "eternal verities." To me they provide me with the
needed logical links that bind
our transient "present" with the "past." The nebulous future is then
seen to develop out of these two and the free power to choose
exercised by every member of humanity.
As far as I can determine this "past" is unalterable, although
opinions concerning it vary greatly.
I do not think we can "interfere" with any one's belief system. There
are certain elements of any "belief system" that are true and
UNIVERSAL and there are usually many errors and misconceptions. To
clear these away would be beneficial to all. But it is also agree
that this may be a very painful process. That, to me, is why
"beliefs" are dangerous. They are something less than TRUTH.
Theosophy has exposed me to some basic and universal principles -- and
I have admittedly to modify any of my belief systems if they prove
inaccurate and untrustworthy.
a theosophist should not belong to any organization. Labels are
always faulty as the individual always stands alone.
If you (or I, or any one) has studied THEOSOPHY as a system, and know
it. then we may be able to determine if all known laws and factors
apply to a problem. No one is going, if a true "Theosopher" to accept
blindly anything. [Theosopher = lover of Divine Truth]
Verification is independent of any "label" it is an independent
process of seeing if any statement is true and based on universal
fundamentals. There is of course trouble deterring those. Hence in
the SECRET DOCTRINE, Mme. H. P. Blavatsky established the ancient ones
(see pp 14 -19 Vol. I) The system named THEOSOPHY cannot be grasped
unless those are employed.
It is by cross questioning one-another that verities and truths can be
defined for mutual use in discussion.
These are a few of the fundamentals I consider all the time:
1 SPIRIT Universal Impartite Fundamental Eternal
2 MATTER A Modified Aspect Of Spirit Infinitely Small Yet Is
Inseparable From Spirit -- the theory of universal Monads -- Living
Units, perpetually in motion. Also Eternal.
3. MIND A vehicle (or comparative position) mid-way between
Spirit and Matter which is INTELLIGENT CONSCIOUS and is therefore
dual : 1 Spiritual-Mind, and, 2. Material-mind. Each Monad to
be viewed as an Eternal Pilgrim -- an intelligence wending its way
towards complete Knowledge (or WISDOM). The Monad is free-willed, and
always has the power to choose.
4. EVOLUTION A process of progressive experiences under
immutable law and through re-embodiment ( reincarnation).
5. LAW universally present, so as to create an environment in
which there is an harmony of diversities. Nothing is superfluous or
to be left out of the scheme.
6. REINCARNATION A process of re-embodiment whereby
intelligence, consciousness and character are perpetuated and carried
7. CAUSE and BASIC REASON for this ? Now that is a mystery. We
see the progress but the beginning (as also the end) are obscure.
8 GOOD is that action or choice which harmonizes with universal
LAW. EVIL is that which breaks or distorts LAW.
See if these resonate .
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: Is Blavatsky time-appropriate?
Hi Dallas. It seems you are having difficulty grasping the concept
that every great teaching that has ever been presented to humanity is
always presented in a way that is appropriate to the specific needs of
specific people AT A SPECIFIC TIME. In the Middle East, the specific
force a teaching carries to affect people is called "baraka." After a
while all teachings lose their baraka, and with it a certain kind of
life, as knowledge needs to be presented in different ways according
to which knowledge has already been presented, the form in which it
has been presented, and the manner in which people have (or have not)
been affected by this).
This is a simple enough concept to grasp and it makes perfect sense.
The reason you may be having difficulty with this is that you are what
I would call an eternalist. This means that you see certain aspects of
the universe as existing externally to and independent of yourself and
this also implies not only that you believe yourself to exist on your
own side, as an independent entity, but also that "knowledge" exists
independently from its own side. It is your right to believe anything
you want, and I would not want to take this away from you. In the
beginning I thought that you were a representative of the views of
theosophy (as in all truth, this is how you present yourself, whether
you will honestly acknowledge it or not), and I did not want to speak
openly, as it is not my aim, and even against my moral principles, to
interfere with a group of people and their belief system, but I am
starting to understand that many theosophists have a view that is a
little less broad or even a little more broad than your own, and that
I may even qualify to be a theosophist myself, so I am now beginning
to see it as maybe a duty to do my part to establish the spirit of
genuine enquiry, and not be shy, as ultimately, this will benefit us
In all truth, there is a kind of static quality to an eternalistic
viewpoint that would contribute to the illusion that knowledge exists
externally and eternally on its own side and that it can all be laid
out once and for all in a form that can be given and received. The
proof IS in the pudding, but after a while, the old pudding will
spoil. (If you look at the pudding as life itself, life will not
spoil, but to me, making pudding symbolizes making something active
out of life and sharing that nourishing food with others in such a way
that they can consciously, and not mechanically, partake.. It is
necessary to make new pudding all the time, whether you like it or
not. There are many different approaches to making pudding. Some
pudding is too sweet. Some is too bitter. Some pudding is essentially
nourishing, while other pudding is not. In my opinion, for a pudding
to be complete, the ingredients in it need to be of the finest quality
and also WELL-BALANCED, each ingredient in relationship to the others
IN THE PROPER PROPORTION, but I will stop here, as maybe this analogy
can only be carried so far,
What was the aim of Madame Blavatsky when she designed her material in
a certain configuration? I believe it was to affect human society in a
certain way, and she has done so. If she were alive today, do she
think she would write the same books? That is ridiculous, as she has
already done so, and the material has been released and disseminated,
and, as happens with all material over time, its original baraka has
to one degree or another been greatly depleted. This is not bad or
good, but it a natural and a law, and unless this is taken into active
consideration, this teaching will no longer continue to exert the
influence it was originally designed to have.
You have spoken a lot about "verification," and this is somewhat
problematic to me. I am not saying that you are necessarily doing so,
but it is easy to give lip-service to this concept without
understanding the nature of what verification is and how to verify in
such a way that belief and the building of a house upon the false sand
of ones conditioning does not enter into the picture. In order for
verification to be scrupulous certain guidelines and conditions for
verifying may need to be presented, not as authority, but as a helping
model, so that we will not innocently deceive ourselves into further
stupor. Maybe we can all work together and enquire into this subject.
I will have more comments to make on your material, which is helping
me to clarify my own understanding, in the future. Not necessarily
only one person may be capable of helping to reshape theosophy in
such a way that it can (continue to) be a powerful force and help many
people. There may be more than one, but when we make a certain kind
and quality of pudding, we might need to start with a kitchen that is
clean, uncluttered and well organized, well lighted and spacious, with
plenty of fresh air and with people who not only know how to do a
certain task independently but are also able to come together as a
team and do a joint project that is of SIGNIFICANT value in such a
way that an end result that is very difficult, or even almost
impossible to achieve, is actually accomplished. Sincerely, Wry