Hi everybody!

Someone wrote a book on the Stanzas of Dzyan. The original, hard-to-read poem has been re-written into everyday English. The name of the book is O Lanoo!

http://www.olanoo.com/

Here are a few extracts.

http://www.olanoo.com/ol_extracts.html

I think this book is an excellent introduction to the study of the Sanazas of Dzyan.

I finished reading the book. I can now say, if anyone wants to read The Secret Doctrine, they should read O Lanoo! first.

Reading O Lanoo! before reading The Secret Doctrine will probably cause more questions to be asked than be answered, but I think that is a good thing.

Hi Everybody, glad that Nick found my book. Not many theosophists have time to read the Secret Doctrine nowadays, which is a shame, because the thread running through it (The Book of Dzyan) is what theosophy is based on. It tells both our history and our destiny. If you can't read the SD, read Dzyan. If you can't make sense of Dzyan, read O Lanoo! I'll try to answer questions on this forum, but it's a few years since I wrote it and I can't remember what I did yesterday, so I'm not making any promises.

Hi, Harvey, and welcome to the Forum.

When you get a chance, start a new thread about where you live, what you do, and your connections to Theosophy.

I agree that The Secret Doctrine is ignored by some Theosophists. It is just too difficult to sit down and just read. Someone once said it is not a book, it is an encyclopedia, and we have to know how to find things in it.

I was thinking about the ULT conference near Philadelphia this summer. Several months ago, a request was sent out, asking people to offer to make presentations. I immediately thought to myself, "How about if someone presented the SD?" I am not sure how such a topic could even be properly covered in an hour and a half. I later thought, if I was a presenter, I would read your book out loud! (I wonder how long it would take to read it out loud....)

Thanks for the welcome, Nick. I'll stop by and introduce myself properly this weekend.

I've heard some English theosophists say that you open the SD at random and gain inspiration from whatever you happen upon. That's as may be, but I still think Dzyan is something to read from start to finish. I've given a few talks to the Theosophical Society in England, and I always read excerpts from O Lanoo! but I've never tried reading the whole book aloud. It's about 10,000 words, if you can work it out from there how long it would take.

Some of the English lodges (branches) use OL! as a study aid, but I don't know whether any American groups have picked up on it in that way.

For a couple of years now I've bee toying with the idea of writing a film script combining HPB's life story (quite remarkable in its own right) with OL! (the heart of her teachings). I'd be interested in any views on this. Would it be a worthwhile endeavour? And does anyone know an open-minded film producer?

It sounds like one day I should get the book to help others understand the SD, but I am wondering if O Lanoo is an easier restatement of the verses in SD, or if O Lanoo is a particularly shorter or longer version. The website says it is shorter than something which sounds like maybe the full SD text. If O Lanoo is a restatement I will probably read it myself, but I hope it is not actually shorter than the SD verses.

Hi David, O Lanoo! is a restatement of the verses of Dzyan. It was intended as an easier read! The problem in the SD (for me, anyway) is that HPB gives an actual stanza (which seems like gibberish) then she explains it over the next thirty pages, using words that I had to look up in a dictionary, with lots of digressions along the way. So when I read it I kept losing the thread. I tried to pick out her explanations and condense them, and ignored all the other stuff. You can read a few stanzas on the OL! web site. You will be able to tell from that whether it speaks to you or not.

I seem to remember that the SD is about 750,000 words, and I guess Dzyan is a few hundred. OL! is about 10,000 words.

David,

The Stanzas of Dzyan is a 15-page poem that tells the history of the universe and the human race. HPB wrote a 1474-page book called The Secret Doctrine to explain The Stanzas of Dzyan. The Secret Doctrine is a very difficult book to read.

Harvey's book, O Lanno! is an 82-page re-wording of The Stanzas of Dzyan into easily-understood English. Even HPB's 1474-page explanation, although thorough, is difficult to understand. O Lanoo! makes The Stanzas of Dzyan easy to understand. I recommend a person first read O Lanoo! to figure out what HPB was trying to say, then begin the very difficult process of reading The Secret Doctrine.

For anyone who is interested, I have written a study guide for The Stanzas of Dzyan.

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/stanzas.htm#one

I go through the Stanzas of Dzyan line by line and word by word, and give my interpretations of the entire poem. Of course, these are my own interpretations of what HPB meant to say. Each person is encouraged (required?) to make their own final interpretations of The Stanzas of Dzyan.

Nick, I have just been reading some of your interpretations to Dzyan, and it seems to me that this is more helpful to a serious student than O Lanoo! I tried to keep the poetical quality of the original and sacrificed straightforward explanations. Your interpretations might not be poetical, but they are easier to understand. Quite a tour de force!

Harvery,

Thank you for your compliment. Yes, your work and my work serve two different purposes. Your book, O Lanoo!, tells the basic story, and gives the reader some idea of what the heck HPB was talking about. It is a nice, concise introduction into a very difficult subject area. It also tells the basic story of the Stanzas in one place, from start to finish, which is something that is hard to find. The nice thing about your book is that a person can read your book and enjoy the story, with little need to refer to other books. It is a nice, tight, self-contained package.

On the other hand, my in-depth study guide serves a completely different purpose. I tried to explain every word in the Stanzas, which was a huge undertaking. One of the biggest problems with studying The Secret Doctrine is that there are quotes all over the place, in many books and articles. I tried to re-group as many quotes as I could, and put them in a logical order. I listed all of the quotes I could find, and identified where those quotes could be found. Hopefully, a serious student will follow all of the references, and read the quotes that HPB and others (particularly Barborka, Ram, and Ashish) wrote. My study guide includes hundreds of references that will lead the serious student to years of study.

HPB did a Herculean task in writing The Secret Doctrine. I am thrilled that you and I have been able, in some small way, to help people better understand the important story she first released back in 1888.

Harvey,

I want to point out one thing in your book that I found fascinating. It regards the Three falling into the Four.

In the SD we read,

Then the Three fall into the Four.
(SD Shloka i-3-4)

I have never found a quote by HPB or anyone else that adequately describes the meaning of this sentence. Then, I saw this in your book.

The three Elements of Spirit
Fall into the four Elements of Matter
And the radiant essence
Takes on seven aspects.
(O Lanoo! p 30)

Later on, we read

The four aspects of Matter
Take on the three aspects of Spirit
And the union
Produces the differentiated Universe
Which will be home to Man.
(O Lanoo! p 32)

I was thrilled to finally see someone address the differences between the Three and the Four. What, exactly, do you see as the Three and the Four?

Nick,

I have used your comment on my web site, many thanks. I have identified you as Nick P, California. Hope that’s OK. I have also added a link to your study notes of Dzyan.

I have just seen your contribution to the Comparative Religion forum. Wow, you are one prolific writer!

Hmm, four and three. I used to be an accountant, so I can work with numbers, but I’m always wary about getting hung up about numbers in a spiritual sense. When I wrote O Lanoo! I felt this was my weakest part. First of all, if the answer to everything is One, then any sub-division is either arbitrary or temporary. The concept of One-ness is so vast, so beyond our comprehension, that it has to be broken down into manageable chunks for us to get even close to it, but we shouldn’t get too attached to any single manageable chunk.

Of the seven aspects of Man, four are ‘of the earth’ and dissipate with death; the three higher aspects move on to the next stage. For me, and in broad terms, “four” is symbolic of the physical plane: points of the compass, elements, etc. A square is a solid base on which to erect something less substantial, like the three-sided pyramid of the Holy Trinity. In a square there is scope for conflict from opposite sides, typical of what goes on between groups of people. This is why we are incarnated in physical form: to learn to manage collisions. The dynamics of a triangle aren’t conducive to polarities. On the non-physical planes pure energies on different wavelengths can’t come into contact, there is no clash.

I’m not sure whether this basic division between matter and spirit extends to other groups of seven, like musical notes, colours of the rainbow, the major chakras, Alice Bailey’s Rays. What do you think?

Harvey,

By the way, it's Nick M. not Nick P.

You said,

"I have just seen your contribution to the Comparative Religion forum."

--> For the readers out there, here is a link to that Forum.

http://comparative-religion.com/forum/

I started a few threads at that Forum, on Theosophy. Here are a couple of them.

Theosophy's Origin of the Universe
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/...verse-8366.html

Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter what?
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/...-that-7510.html

Theosophical Hierarchy
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/...archy-6974.html

I am afraid that things at that Forum are not conducive to good inter-religious discussions. Unfortunately, people who are on that Forum are allowed to express their animosity towards other religions. I have pretty much stopped posting there.

~~~

The Three which fall into the Four, mentioned in Shloka i-3-4, are the seven principles of man? First of all, for those people unfamiliar with the seven principles of man, here is a graphic of them.



I am sorry, but to me, these seven principles do not seem to be the same as the Three that fall into the Four. Let's take a look at the time-frame of Shloka i-3-4. At that point in "time," the First Logos (Father) and Second Logos (Mother) had appeared, but the Third Logos (Son) had not yet appeared. (The Son appeared later, in Shloka i-3-7.) Shloka i-3-4 occured between the appearance of the World Egg and the Son (the two of which have a very cryptic difference).

What does everybody think?

~~~

Harvey, there is another idea that needs to be mentioned. As we all know, volume 1 of the SD deals with cosmogenesis. However, in my humble opinion, there is a question as to which cosmogenesis is being discussed. SD vol 1 deals with the creation of our universe, but it also deals with the creation of our galaxy, and also with the creation of our solar system. Quite frankly, I think it is unclear which of the three stories the SD vol 1 really discusses. Again, in my humble opinion, I think that a great deal of SD vol 1 deals with the creation of our solar system, not the creation of our universe. In addition, I think this is exactly the kind of confusion HPB intentionally put into the SD.

What, you ask, does this have to do with Threes falling into Fours? If the Three and Four discussed in Shloka i-3-4 are solar entities, not universal entities, is it then possible the solar Three and Four are the seven principles of man?

Although Immanuel Kant speculated in the 18th century that some nebulae might be separate galaxies, this wasn't shown to be until the early 20th century. In HPB's day, the Milky Way was the universe.

I think the SD begins by talking about the universe (ala big bang), but then shifts to the solar system. I'm not sure where this shift takes place, however.

Nick, this is a veritable cosmic can of worms! I think Jon is right, there is a paradigm shift in Cosmogenesis, but it almost doesn’t matter which aspect HPB is discussing at any one time, because the principles are the same on all levels. The Cosmos, the solar system, or mankind, the pattern is the same: as above, so below. Perhaps it was fanciful thinking, but when I was immersed in Dzyan I got the impression that each stanza operated on multiple levels. I could only ever get two or three at most, but I suspected that there might be seven. The SD just whets our appetite, it doesn’t give us the whole story.

(P for Pilot, but I’ll change you to Nick M.)

Early on in this thread I asked a question about making a film combining the life of HPB (an adventure story to rival Indiana Jones) with the story of Dzyan ~ as told in O Lanoo!

Nobody picked up on it, so perhaps it’s not a good idea, but leaving aside the difficulties of funding and production, would such a film serve theosophy ~ or would it be a sacrilege?

Lanoo Harvey
www.olanoo.com

Harvey,

The idea of a movie about the life of HPB is an idea that has been kicked around for some time. Sure, it would be good to see such a movie, but none of us has the millions of dollars to make such a movie. Also, if I remember correctly, there are about 30,000 Theosophists worldwide — too few people to justify a major movie studio gambling so much money on such a movie.

I am surprised by your question about such an idea being sacrilege. No, I do not think it would be sacrilege. The more we get out the story, the better.

There have been discussions about the fact that a large number of people in the world think that HPB was a total charlatan. Unfortunately, the church fathers have gone out of their way to discredit HPB over the years, and they have been quite successful. I remember having a discussion on whether HPB's negative image to most people in the world would doom a movie about her from the very beginning.

I am reminded how there has never been a good movie about Buddha himself. This topic, too, has been bantered about. If the Buddhists cannot get a movie about Buddha produced, it would seem that it would be much more difficult for Theosophists to get a movie about HPB produced.

Hmm, you’re probably right, Nick, although there was a strong Christian groundswell against the Harry Potter books and films but it didn’t stop JKR. In fact, I heard John Algeo give a talk on Harry Potter and theosophy a few years ago. It seemed a bit like jumping on somebody else’s bandwagon, which is a shame, because we could be starting our own bandwagon.

I raised the question of sacrilege because I have encountered quite stiff resistance to O Lanoo! in some quarters. There are those who seem to believe that any re-working of HPB’s teachings is a sacrilege. One comment I had from Adyar was: “why would anyone want to read O Lanoo! when they can read the original?”

Which is why I now tend to work on the periphery of the TS, away from the hardcore old guard.

Harvey,

You quoted,

“why would anyone want to read O Lanoo! when they can read the original?”

--> Those are words from someone who does not want to hear the answer to their own question.

You said,

"There are those who seem to believe that any re-working of HPB’s teachings is a sacrilege."

--> It is a two-edged sword.

(1) There are things that 'creep in', things that some people say are not Theosophy any more. The two examples that quickly pop into my head are the works by Alice Bailey and Rudolf Steiner. Clearly, these writers get into ideas and topics that some Theosophists say are not Theosophy. Yet other people say that Bailey, Steiner, et. all, do write Theosophical ideas. Quite frankly, I can understand the desire of some Theosophists to keep ideas from Bailey, Steiner, etc., out of Theosophical discussions.

(2) On the other hand, some people are way too restrictive in what can and what cannot be brought up in a Theosophical discussion. Some Theosophists will only discuss HPB's writings, and no one else's writings. I think this is a mistake, especially as it goes against the Third Object of Theosophy.

~~~

In my humble opinon, the biggest challenge facing Theosophy today is a move towards fundamentalism, with HPB being the 'Grand Pooh-bah' of those fundamentalists. Theosophy is more dedicated to fighting fundamentalism than any other religious or philosophical organization in the world. Yet it is only natural for Theosophists to fall into the very trap of wanting to be fundamentalists. This is something we must ever be vigilant of. For goodness sakes, the last thing we need is a Theosophical Pope!!!

HPB would not have wanted it any other way.

Nick,

These are interesting points, and lest not everyone reads all the threads in this section I have taken them to a new thread under “Issues in Theosophy”.

Going back to the idea of a film on HPB and her teachings, there might only be 30,000 theosophists worldwide but the success of a score or more movies dealing with the paranormal, supernatural, or whatever, shows there is a huge appetite for the issues described in theosophy. And I might be wrong, but I’m sure I have seen a movie about Buddha.

The person in Adyar who questioned the need for O Lanoo! has been around long enough to form her own ideas and not have them challenged. Yes, I suppose you could say she is a fundamentalist.

I think HPB could see that the TS was being split from within before she died, and that is why her last book was Voice of the Silence ~ telling us to behave ourselves. We still haven’t taken the advice to heart.

This may be premature, but I agree there is appetite for issues in theosophy, and because of that and if there was a movie about Buddha (there will be another soon,) it might be good if such an HPB movie also had at least a couple minutes about the main prophets/founders/saviours (including Bab & Bahaullah) as well as classical Greek philosophers from the legendary Hermes Trismegistus, to Orpheus, Pythagoras, Socrates & Plato to neo-Platonists, and (if the writers felt it useful) Krishnamurti; most of them are mentioned in Theosophy anyway. If such a film compared past philosophy with the present that led to and developed from Theosophy, people might see how it is important. Bahai led to and developed from Theosophy, and of course Krishnamurti's philosophy developed from Theosophy. OTOH, it may take people more than a lifetime to go from interest in the supernatural to interest in the core of Philosophy.

I have just heard (in the past few days) about a gentleman in Calgary who is producing a movie on HPB, primarily from Olcott's perspective. The screenplay is written, the director is on board, and he is now arranging financing.

That’s good news, Jon. Lets hope he does a good job.

I’m afraid my ambitions were far more modest than David’s. I would have settled for entertainment + sowing a few seeds. It will be interesting to see what comes out of Calgary.

"...a movie on HPB...."

--> Wow, that is amazing. I am waiting to see how it turns out.

It is good to hear a movie is planned.

Maybe I should have said Theosophists might be interested in Bahai, which was influenced by Theosophy, though it did not necessarily lead to it. However, in a way, most religions did lead to it. A mentor of mine said a "golden thread connects the world's religions," and I think that is theosophy. Maybe there would be other seeds to sow besides mentioning all the religious founders, but I think HPB mentions all the Greek philosophers above somewhere in her writings....

It's interesting you mention the Golden Thread. Joscelyn Godwin has a book entitled "The Golden Thread: The Ageless Wisdom of the Western Mystery Traditions" (Quest Books). It begins with the Greeks and ends with Theosophy. There is a thread connecting the Eastern, Western, all the traditions.
Govert Schuller (old friend) plans to use this book for a class this fall at Olcott.

"...I have to accept that O Lanoo! is too obscure for the majority of non-theosophists."

--> Really? You think so? I hadn't picked up that feeling at all. Have you done any 'testing' of your book on non-Theosophists, to get a feel for the typical reaction to it by 'the man in the street'?

Nick, I hope you don’t mind if I bring these comments back to this thread.

When Findhorn brought out O Lanoo! I employed publicists in the US and the UK to promote my book. As you can see from the web site, I got some favourable reviews from non-theosophical sources, but the fact remains that for most people Dzyan contains some pretty weird stuff. Friends and family who have read OL! have said kind things, but they can’t take the weird stuff seriously. Voice of the Silence would have served as a better introduction for non-theosophists, but at the time I didn’t think that needed a re-interpretation.

Nick, you also said:
I am sorry to hear that your book has been received so poorly by 'old-school Theosophists.' Hopefully, that will eventually change.
Thank you. In fact, I have been gratified by the response from ‘ordinary’ theosophists.

Harvey,

You said,

"...for most people Dzyan contains some pretty weird stuff. Friends and family who have read OL! have said kind things, but they can’t take the weird stuff seriously."

--> That is the painful reality of the situation. I am immediately reminded how the Mahatmas only release a little of the Ancient Wisdom at a time. Now I can see why.

"Voice of the Silence would have served as a better introduction for non-theosophists, but at the time I didn’t think that needed a re-interpretation."

--> I think your interpretation of the Stanzas was a great idea. It is the Theosophical answer to the Bible. Hey, some people want to read it, and other people don't. That is just the way it is.

And, I will probably be criticized for saying this but ... the Stanzas are a lot less weird than the Bible.... (Oh dear, have I violated my own Forum Rules by saying that...? How can I say that in a positive way?)

One man's weirdness is another man's normality.