Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00023)

May 1st 1998

Dear Thoa:O

        POINTS OF VIEW

To insist on one's own, is of course a sign of being flawed.  If
the Truth is ONE, and we approach it by our particular "path" or
"choose our way of thinking," I agree, we will only see it
partially.

Accordingly any report that we make to others will have to be
preceded with the caution that it may be incorrect -- if we are
honest.

However, when one starts out to study maths, or logic, or
geography, or painting -- there is a base of proved and reproved
data to go on -- perhaps not all the details, but in general
there is a consensus.  WE can of course hew out our own ways and
methods, but perhaps some of the ground work can be saved, by
adapting and viewing the work already done by our predecessors.
and for me, that seems to be one of the safest ways.  I still
have to decide what to "accept," or what to "questions," or what
to "eject."  I cannot shirk my responsibility for that.

In all I write, I am appealing to that consensus.  If you read
the second page of HPB's SECRET DOCTRINE -- I mean her PREFACE
(p. viii ) in the original edition she says, speaking of the work
she is presenting to the reader to examine :

"That it has many shortcomings she is fully aware;  all that she
claims for it is that, romantic as it may seem to many, its
logical coherence and consistency entitle this new Genesis to
rank, at any rate, on a level with the "working hypotheses" so
freely accepted by modern science."

"The aim of this work may be stated thus:  to show that Nature is
not "a fortuitous concurrence of atoms,"  and to assign to man
his rightful place in the scheme of the Universe;  to rescue from
degradation the archaic truths which are the basis of all
religions;  and to uncover...the fundamental unity from which
they all spring;  finally, to show that the occult side of Nature
has never been approached by the Science of modern civilization..
If this is any degree accomplished, the writer is content.  It is
written in the service of humanity..."            SD  I  viii

Contrary to some opinions that have been broadcast for years, the
S D makes for very interesting reading -- and is so especially
for those who would like to know why the facts and truths that
relate to man's development and the rise and fall of continents
and civilizations, have been hidden for such a long time, or have
been systematically misinterpreted.

How much trust would you give to a religion, or a science, or to
a system of education that desires to possess you body and soul,
and make you a "true believer" with no lee-way of your own --
merely a puppet to repeat without thinking the "party line."  Or,
toe a pre-set line ?  Or would you feel more comfortable and at
peace with  such systems as say in effect:   "Be free, think,
seek, work as you devise.  The world is wide.  You are an
immortal pupil.  Graduation depends on your decisions as to when,
by what road, and how fast you will proceed.  Here are some
fundamental concepts that you ought to consider.  Here they are
for you to work on. "   And that is all.  That, in effect, is
Theosophy.

If you think carefully about our present situation in the world,
you will find that it describes quite accurately the condition of
every human. Each one of us chooses his present location, his
present work, and his limits or reaches out to whatever goals he
visualizes, and works towards achieving them.  You may say to me
I cannot change my parents, my education, my language, my
country -- and I will heartily agree.  Those are you situation up
to now.  Your continued acceptance, or any change that you may
make is a matter of your freedom.  Our present freedoms are
always somewhat limited by our past situations and past choices.
The process is called Karma in the East in India.  It is said to
be the basic and eternal law of all evolution.  It is also said
that only the human mind can encompass it and find a way to
escape the bonds of the past.

At least that is how I think of it.                    Dallas

> From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" <thoalight@aol.com>
> Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 1:17 AM
> Subject: Same Objects but.....

>Dallas:
>>I think that conversation demands at least a modicum of
>>discrimination.  It would be difficult to discuss rational
ideas
>>with the mad-man that you present me with, and equally
difficult
>>to discuss music with a person born deaf from infancy.  Or to
>>discuss a painting and color with one born blind.
>>
>>So if one is going to talk philosophy or ethical verities, then
>>one has to talk to those who have shown some interest and
>>understanding, and who try to see if there are any universal
>>criteria that can be applied to such exchange.
><snip>
>
>Dear Dallas,
>
>Because we are all limited in our thinking, we are all mad in
some ways.
>Have you ever had an argument with a sane person, but decided
that there is
>no way you will ever get through to that person?  In that way,
it is no
>different than talking to a mad man.  Suppose an omniscient
being were to
>have conversations with each one of us.  This being would
conclude that we
>are all mad and no better than the mad-man in my example.  Go
back in time,
>Dallas, to a time when everyone thought the earth was flat.  If
you try to
>convince them that the earth was round, they would think you
mad.  Seers
>have been condemned for their visions.
>
>Best wishes to you, too, Dallas.
>
>Thoa :o)