Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00122)

W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net> writes
>I always thought Theosophy was a series of propositions for us to
>consider and adopt if we found that they were reasonable.

Me too.
>
>Something like:
>
>Every one of us is an Immortal -- the body is assumed employed,
>deployed and finally consummated.  The Spiritual Self oversees
>constantly the process of mental and moral improvement.

Partly reasonable.  My experience suggests that the Spiritual Self
oversees - period.
>
>Morals have a basis in Law and in fact.

In fact, perhaps. In Law, no.
>
>Moral Law is Natural Law.

"Morals" derive from "mores" which are human customs which vary
from place to place and from time to time.  The moral "law" of the
Taleban [sp?] in Afghanistan is very different from that of (say) Illinois.
Therefore such a view is unreasonable
>
>Evolution makes for Universal Rightness as well as Righteousness.

"Evolution" is a theory. Change and development are observable facts.
To follow a theory is reasonable.  Dogmatically to accept a theory as
"truth" is unreasonable.
>
>The "Fundamental unity of all Souls with the Universal Oversoul"
>makes moral contagion possible through the subtle psychic medium
>that we all share in.

Completely unreasonable.  IF such a unity already exists, then the
statement can only mean that the"Universal Oversoul" is itself infected
by contagion, and all Souls - acording to the above premise - are
imperfect.  The word contagion itself requires contact. Thus all Souls
are corrupt by reason of being Souls in the first place. *That* would be
a reasonable proposition, given the stated hypothesis.

Alan
-------------------
Brought to you from
 West Cornwall, UK