Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00050)

Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> >Theosophy as I have seen and studied and experienced it is the one system
> >which demands that we accept nothing blindly:  No FAITH, no AUTHORITY, no
> >BLIND BELIEF.
> >
>
> Actually, Buddhism does this too. However, as I noted above,
> even Theosophy requires belief. Direct observation of Truth
> can only take us so far, and beyond that threshold (unique to
> each of us) lies belief. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this.

Jerry,

Thank you so much. All in all an extremely interesting post.

To me, having a belief is a little like being able to honestly admit
that, in many respects, you simply "don't know." Your belief is the view
you adopt towards the unknown, (granted, this is a personal view.)
Theosophists have so many books to quote from that they often overlook
this. Even the Mahatmas, if they are to be taken at their words, have to
be obliged the fact that with as much knowledge as they profess, they
themselves admit that there are limits to it, even to the knowledge of
the highest Dhyan Chohans in the System. At a certain point, they too
have to say, "I do not know." All of the written teachings of Theosophy
are qualified with this fact, as Madame Blavatsky states numerous times.
Theosophy students tend to forget this.

Your statement that "direct observation of Truth can only take us so
far" seems like it might be at odds with, for example, some Buddhist
notions of "enlightenment." Would you care to elaborate your position?


> >Since it starts with the idea that the UNIVERSE is one, and we can call it
> >"spirit," or "god" or anything we please, but we cannot deny that it is a
> >WHOLE.
> >
>
> Your premise that the "UNIVERSE" (whatever that is!) is "one" and a
> "WHOLE" is an assumption, and I would submit that this assumption
> is a vital part of your belief system. There is obviously no way to
> scientifically observe this wholeness, and thus it must be taken on
> faith. BTW, I am not so sure about your assumption. I believe that
> MY universe is one whole, but that my universe is not your universe.
> One of the basic assumptions of my own belief system is that there
> are an infinite number of universes, any way you care to define the
> term.

I agree, it'd be pretty darn hard for anyone of us to get outside the
"universe" to scientifically proove it an organic "whole." The mystical
experience is an inner one that can only happen individually to people.
There is a mystery as well as a paradox in it that words only utterly
fail to express. It seems from your statement that the key might be in
identification. Have you ever wondered how those Buddhists can say all
that wonderful stuff about "anatma" and "no-self" but carry on a
perfectly good personal conversation with you while they're doing it?
;-)

<snip>
> >Our relation to it is that we embody, in however small a measure the same
> >potentials as that WHOLE.  So if it is "GOD," then we and "gods -- in the
> >making."
> >
> >
> Who is the "we" that does this embodying? The human being? If
> you look higher -- at the divine Monad, I would say that our divine
> Monad IS the universe (or rather "a" universe).


So are you saying (by your qualifying "rather" statement above) that
your perception/conception of the Monad is as a "one among others?"
Words are tricky here. You seem to be supporting lots of dualistic
points of view; i.e., You looking at/the Monad, the Monad as an
individual universe/among other universes, while simultaneously BEING
the universe, etc. What does the word "universe" mean to you in these
usages?

<snip>
> >Karma draws us back to life in a new body so that we may balance our debts,
> >receive compensation and perhaps start new accounts, and so life goes on
> >with, to the real "me" an ever increasing increment of learning and talent.
> > HPB in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY gives the system and working of this in
> >detail.  It is valuable to have a good knowledge of that.
> >
> But it is questionable about who this "us" is that you are referring to.
> It is only the skandhas, which can not be confused with any person or
> self. No ego or self reincarnates. This is a basic Buddhist teaching,
> which I agree with.


Who can know the mystery of Subhava,
or fathom the causeless cause of Tanha?
I do not know.


> BTW, the "real" you is already spiritual, and doesn't
> need another life on Earth or anywhere else. The whole notion of a
> personal self that needs to learn and grow via reincarnation is a maya. It is
> the exoteric view of reincarnation, and one that HPB tried to dispell.
> Unfortunately, the TSs have all touted this exoteric view since HPB
> and have done a general dis-service to humanity (IMO of course).

... and the ultimate reason for all this maya in the first place?
I certainly don't know that either, but loving Thoa's been really good.
Not to mention sushi, art museums, little kids, puppies ...
I could go on and on ...

Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com
E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com