Richard Rose, Blavatsky and Theosophy
Forum posts by Mark Jaqua
Blavatsky was one of R.’s most important early influences, as he stated himself on many occasions. He said, for instance, that he used to bundle himself up at the farm in the winter, and would choose one paragraph at a time out of The Secret Doctrine, and meditate on it. Below are some statements by Blavatsky compared with what later became some of Rose’s teachings. If there are any questions on Blavatsky and Theosophy in general, I’d be glad to try to answer.
– jake j.
Some Blavatsky and Theosophy in Rose
Becoming
“If Hiraf is right about the seventh rule of the Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross which says that “the Rose-crux becomes and is not made,” he may err as to the exceptions which have ever existed among other Brotherhoods devoted to the pursuit of the same secret knowledge. Then again, when he asserts, as he does, that Rosicrucianism is almost forgotten, we may answer him that we do not wonder at it, …”
“One who wants “to become” has to hunt for his knowledge through thousands of scattered volumes, and pick up facts and lessons, bit by bit. Unless he takes the nearest way and consents “to be made,” he will never become a practical Cabalist, and with all his learning will remain at the threshold of the “mysterious gate”. … The Oriental Rosicrucians … in the serene beatitude of their divine knowledge, are ever ready to help the earnest student struggling “to become” with practical knowledge, which dissipates, like a heavenly breeze, the blackest clouds of sceptical doubt.”
– “A Few Questions to Hiraf” – H.P. Blavatsky’s First Theosophical Article
“Nature is never stationary during manvantara, as it is ever becoming,* not simply being….”
(* footnote: “According to the great metaphysician Hegel also. For him Nature was a perpetual becoming. A purely esoteric conception. … “)
– Secret Doctrine I, p. 257 (Original edition)
“To fervent and persevering candidates for the above science, I have to offer but one word of advice, ‘Try and become.'”
– “From Madam Blavatsky to Her Correspondents,” The Spiritual Scientist
Betweenness
Quoting: “‘… That which exists and that which does not exist are a pair, between them is the fire, etc.,’….. ‘fire’ means in these allegories both the ‘Self’ and the higher divine knowledge…”
– Secret Doctrine II, p. 567, Blavatsky (Original edition)
“Consciousness is the lamp which stands in the midst between the two worlds, the phenomenal and the noumenal, in the place of the sign of equality.”
– J. D. Buck (The Path, April, 1887, p. 16)
Retreating from Untruth
TRUTH: “The next best thing to learning what is true is to ascertain what is not true.”
~ Blavatsky Collected Writings, V 150
Tension as a change-force
“You must first strive to raise your own vibrations. Tension does this, the tension of lofty thought, benevolent feelings, the living spirit of holy books, communion with high minds, any and every elevating practice, the mind fixed on the True.”
– The Path, April 1887, p. 3 (Jasper Niemand – Julia Keightley)
Rose’s “Process Observer”
“….The Higher Self or Buddhi-Manas, which in the act of self-analysis or highest abstract thinking, partially reveals its presence and holds the subservient brain-consciousness in review. [H.P.B.]”
– Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 8, p. 335fn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Comments section:
Gary
Another reflection of the truth is the truth regardless of who it is that states it. The people that did not meet RR personally did not hear him say “this is not Rosology” as he was always the first to say that Truth is not new but the state of Reality that one could only become. We tend to lose sight of that, due to having to see where it comes from, so we can worship an individual rather than see the non personal Reality that has no author or lifespan.
Miami to Jake
Would you say that Voice of the Silence represents a “path” advocated by Blavatsky? I know she didn’t write it, but she obviously held it in high regard.
Voice of the Silence link at SelfDefinition.Org
Jake to Miami
Of course, Rose reprinted “Voice” in “Profound Writings East and West.” I’m not a real student of it as some are, but seems to me it more or less lays out steps in the path, although full of invaluable advice. As far as the “Path” in Blavatsky, there are some basic principles permeating it, but as far as specifics, Blavatsky recommended “self-devised and self-applied efforts” (paraphrase), and this is the same thing the Buddha said after laying out the basics – “Work out your own salvation with diligence.” There is certainly enough information there to give oneself all the ideas one needs.
I was glad R used the original version of Voice to reprint. Later versions by Quest and Besant, omited a foot note on Pratyeka Buddhas, which is one who seeks enlightenment only for his own ends. I think they went back to the original version now.
– jake j.
Jake to Gary
Rose lays out a system in the Albigen Papers that is also about relative truth as well as a search for ultimate truth, and no doubt the search for relative truth is life long. He changed his approach in later years apparently. Few were interested, I think, in the things that he was interested in as well as “ultimate” truth – i.e. occult aspects and philosophy, like those in Levi, Blavatsky, Brunton, Hartmann, etc….. – while everyone wanted to know about the big “wow” or enlightenment – so things apparently got oriented to what students wanted to hear about.
Seems to me also, R. purposively refained from speculating or putting down his thoughts of what he really thought on many questions – i.e. any “Roseology” on reincarnation, Karma, etc. – as he felt his main purpose was to help people achieve the main insight he got.
Yeah, like you say…. a lot of “personality worship” – which wrecks many teachers.
And like you say, “ultimate truth” (is it really “ultimate”) is the same, and something only to experience.
– jake j.
Gary to Jake
Good point, Richard Rose was very interested in phenomena before and after his realization. He saw it as a way to show the unexplainable and a demonstrable manifestation that can only be properly explained from a higher perspective. And then the other side of RR was the conveyance of what he discovered and heralded as the most elusive of all information. Blavatsky was very interested in both things also.
– Gary
Jake to Garu
I forgot about that point of him saying many times, about not being able to understand something unless you got above it, or the next level up.
Well, Blavatsky, Levi, Brunton, etc. aren’t primarily about phenomena. Blavatsky said she wished she had never mentioned her teachers names or phenomena associated because of all the oppobrium it brought down on them.
On phenomena, remember the story about the spiritualist medium he saw, who materialized figures with no eyes, ect., and descend through a concrete floor?
On the two sides of things, I personally don’t regard philosophy, occultism, real psychology as trivial, even though an illusion in the final analysis. After all, what is one going to do for the rest of infinity if he regards “enlightenment” as the final sunum bonum (I don’t.) Might as well go for the biggest thing in the illusion, and perhaps one can change or speed up the projection a bit? On the other hand, sometimes it is a relief to realize that it is all an evanescent nothing of an experience in big picture.
– jake
Gary to Jake
I remember Rose stating that enlightenment is the highest level that is humanly possible. That leaves open the possibility that what you suggest is true well actually most likely. The engineering of this dimension is far beyond the understanding of any human most likely.
– Gary
[ end ]