Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00236)

March 26th 1998

Dear Bart:

About your MSG on theos-l concerning belief, faith, fact, etc...

I agree that a Society (or an "Association") in which there are no
dogmas or 'beliefs" is an ideal place to be ;and then, to use the
facility of exchanging views.  But any "society" has its own limits
and there may well be others out in the world who have never heard of
it, and yet hold the same ideals as patterns for their lives and/or
research.

Until one has tested any proposition, if they use or adopt it, it is
on the basis of a 'belief.'

I mean by this that they test a statement based on the explanations
and circumstances or qualities that were offered as a starting point.

When those are found to confirm or affirm the validity of the matter
offered, then they can become "fact."  That is as I see it.  They can
be so stated.  It is up to others to verify, to inquire and to
search.

"Faith" to me is of two kinds:

1.	There is "blind" faith, which is acceptance of another's authority
without question or verification -- and this is usually dangerous.  [
As in many Religions around us. ]

2.	There is "illumined" or "verified" faith, as an expression made on
the basis of having proved to one's self the validity of a
proposition or event.

And the 2nd kind moves into the region of "fact" for the individual
concerned.

But no "facts," belief," or "faith" can be enforced on others.  If
that is attempted there is inevitable confusion, conflict and
obscuration.  I have seen enough of this.

Take Science.  when I was a lad and went to school certain things
were advanced to us in the text books as facts, which, subsequently
have been disproved and altered.  As a lad I trusted those
presentations, as they were NOT labeled "theory," or "hypothesis."  I
felt very annoyed at what I could only in my mind term "lies".  Why
not trust thinking people, and especially the young, with the fact
that we are all searching for the truth of things, and we each
participate.  We do not need false "authorities."

Certain things most of us agree to, or we can demonstrate at will or
on request -- those, to me, are facts.

As I see it Theosophy claims to be facts certain events in history,
and certain phenomena in Nature which can be observed by most
observers who fill the requirements for seeing and observation.

I do not find anything that is upsetting in those concepts, (if
properly labeled) but, do you ?

When presented with an incongruity or a paradox, is it not our duty
to ask for the basis on which a statement is made ?

Let us look at the "authority" of the SECRET DOCTRINE.  From the
outset HPB states that she (and the Mahatmas who co-authored the book
with her) present tenets from their records, but do not ask anyone to
accept them without due research and effort.  They present
propositions, which to them are facts, and to us are 'possibilities.'
 It is up to us to assure ourselves of the accuracy of the statements
made, and of the coherency of the whole.  We are never asked to
"believe" or to have "faith" in any statement she or They make.  I
admit that for myself, having studied the S D for a long time in this
incarnation, I have found  it to be very compelling, and insofar as I
have been able to verify its tenets, it has proved to be accurate.  I
tend to trust it.

So we are left quite free to pursue our own course of research and
study.  if we wish to avail ourselves of the current efforts of
others who are willing to share, then that can be sought for in a
"society," or in a talk-group, such as this one, where they is no
"editing."

I do hope that this clears the air.	Best wishes,		Dallas

PS  There is no question that the manner of presentation of certain
ideas or conclusions can set one's "teeth on edge."  But, even so,
what in us responds to that ?  What does the speaker or writer really
mean to advance?  That we have to ask about -- like you do here.

If all of us really were familiar or had mastered what HPB teaches,
in even such an outline as THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, we would all be able
to advance far quicker and avoid many of the side-issues and peculiar
concept, today labeled "Theosophical" that have no basis in any of
the original teachings or presentations.  For that reason I ask for
sources, to be traced and verified.  DTB