Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00445)

Dallas wrote:

>Speaking for myself.  I am quite able to express myself without
>quotations as you may have noticed from my various postings.

I certainly have, Dallas.  And I appreciate it - however, your name, rather
than your person, has become a "symbol" in the battle regarding "to quote or
not to quote."

It's called "fame," I think - and it does have its drawbacks.

>I hold that Theosophy can best be expressed by those who "brought
>it."

I hold that Theosophy can best be expressed by those who "live it."

>But, as
>usual, most people love having someone else to do their thinking
>for them, and to be able (subconsciously) to have someone else to
>"blame" if things go wrong.

Definitely agree - hence, the popularity of the "Devil" - it's all the
Devil's fault, you know.

>Who among us practice in daily life all the
>injunctions of the "Sermon on the Mount ?"

Not "all" of the injunctions of the SERMON ON THE MOUNT are worthy of
adoption - it has different 'laws' for women than men. Note: the adultery
clause.  And, although the SERMON ON THE MOUNT contains great truths - it
does make Jesus sound like a "us vs. them" kinda guy.

>Yes, Science has its beliefs, theories and priests who declare
>its infallibility, while it will be found to be changing all the
>time  -- I can't tell you how many times in my life I have seen
>scientific theory reversed and changed, and I have been editor
>for a science publishing house for some time.

I think that is simply humanity gaining knowledge and understanding - rather
than "Science" declaring its infallibility.  The article Martin submitted
shows that "Science" is willing, albeit balking all the way, to acknowledge
when it is lacking in wisdom.


>What I am annoyed at, angry perhaps, is that when I was a child I
>was taught those were FACTS, not theories, and only after I
>burdened my mind and memory with those "facts," I was later told
>that they were untrue and ought to be modified.  Why should I,
>you, the world be so constantly lied to ?

EXCUSE ME, but - when HPB stated that some of the things she said in ISIS
UNVEILED should be modified - did you feel she had "lied" to you?  Why
different standards for science and not Theosophy?

>There are no
>reserved seats.  Yes I know there is talk of occultism,
>esotericism, and secrets.  Are there any really ?

I don't believe so - but both Jesus and HPB talk the talk of "not giving
holy things to depraved men."  I, myself, am unsure what a depraved person
really is - as science more and more studies the brain.  When is one
"mentally insane" and when is one "depraved?"  Should a person "mentally
ill" be treated like "swine?" (Sermon on the Mount terminology)

>How mush do we take for granted either because
>we do not care to investigate, or desire to "go out and play"
>like the irresponsible children do ?  When does human adulthood
>begin ?

You may have it mixed up here.  Perhaps we are too much "adult" and not
enough "child" in our thinking.  Children love to explore and learn -
adults, not so much - adults tend to be stuck in their ways.

>How many times have priests (of various religions) claimed to be
>the hearers of the latest orders from "Heaven, " or from "God's
>own mouth ?"  And how can anyone believe for a moment that there
>is TRUTH in that ?

Again, are you holding this standard of "Truth" about hearing "orders from
Heaven" to priests or to ALL who claim to hear Divine whispers?

>If the priests are powerful, and have the ear
>of God, then why have they not already arranged to banish evil
>and suffering, torture, genocide, famine, and oppression from the
>Earth ?  If they have power then why have they not used it ?  And
>so on.

Then I guess the Mahatmas, HPB, Gandhi, Jesus and all the rest did/do not
have the "ear of God."  For, according to your questioning - these people
should have been able to "banish evil and suffering, [etc]".

I think the reason the priests, or the Mahatmas, or anyone else so far has
been unable to stop the suffering is because of such 'laws' as "Karma" and
"Free Will."

>Providence and divine
>dispensation, the testing of the moral mettle of the poor
>ignorant parishioners or their "Faith." etc... nonsense !  Or as
>HPB might put it:  "Flapdoodle ! "

Your anger toward the priesthood is evident.  I understand that - I fled the
Catholic Church long ago.  But there are also priests who are totally
dedicated to easing the suffering of their parishioners and try their best
to do so.

>what is so difficult
>about trying to behave honestly and sincerely ?  What kind of
>perverted pleasure is there in anonymously harming another, or
>drugging oneself into insensibility with alcohol or various
>drugs, so that one is no longer in command of one's actions.  Why
>is insensibility considered fun,

Usually, only the young consider drunkeness and the like fun.  Most others
drink and take drugs to try and ease considerable suffering within their
hearts and souls.  They are not bad people - they just don't know where to
turn, where to go for help.  They are numbing themselves from the pain.
You, living in India, have seen the horrible, painful lives led by many
there - do you think they cope by using drugs for "fun?"

>Why is it unpopular to say that any evil thought or act will draw
>from Nature a painful response ?

Because then people will say "Hey, that person had AIDS because he/she did
something bad." or "Hey, that person is poor because they did something bad
in a past life."  It provides us with an 'out' - an escape route - to avoid
helping people.

Are we absolutely sure that people are suffering because of past deeds???
What if we are wrong?  What if some people really are innocent and simply
getting a raw deal?


>Why is it that we look on "good
>fortune" as our due, and on suffering and pain as unjust to us ?

This is the type of question that is scary to those of us who are wary of
the karma issue.  Maybe, Dallas, pain and suffering is UNJUST!

>Why are
>we such awful cowards that we would do to unknown persons harm in
>the dark, when we cannot be recognized, so as to be held directly
>accountable for what we do that is ill ?

This question doesn't seem to make much sense.  If someone is to do harm to
someone secretly, they would hardly have also in tow the desire to be caught
at it.  Please clarify this question.

>Is it so awful that we
>suddenly find out that nature has been looking at us directly all
>this time, and that everything we have done has ben accurately
>entered into our karmic account ?

It wouldn't be.  If people were to actually learn that, more people would
understand why they are in the trouble they are in - provided this KARMA
business is true.  Why does karma have to remain so elusive?  Why punish
centuries later so the people cannot make the connection?  That question has
yet to be (to me) satisfactorily answered.

>What we ought to be asking is why are we being told this fact so
>late in life !

Not all of us are learning "so late in life."

> Why did not our parents and our teachers tell us
>that we would be unable to evade the direct consequences, in due
>time, of all that we think and do ?

Because our parents and teachers do not know or completely understand.

>Why does this conspiracy of
>silence
>continue ?

What you see as a "conspiracy" I see as humans afraid and in need of
understanding and knowledge (hence, the argument for Theosophy to speak more
in the vernacular).

>What is it in us that likes to "live dangerously ?"

Creativity?

>Why do we like continuing to be ignorant ?

It feels safe?

>But where except in Theosophy have explicit answers been
>given ?

I don't see Theosophy offering "explicit answers" and there are many other
places in which to learn such answers to life - some answers are written on
prehistoric cave walls.  Theosophy is just one of many ways - not the only
way, nor even the best way - just a way.


Kym