Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00146)

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allan,
>
> Thanks for your interesting and thought provoking post.

Hello Daniel,

>
>
> I would think from what you have written below that you would
> consider the writers of Mahatma Letters #10, #22 and The Secret
> Doctrine victims of "yogic error"?

As I have not read either of the above I cannot answer your question but going of what I
have seen so far, your summation could very well be correct.

>
>
> Now for some comments and questions.  The subject matter of your
> post is profound and has been the subject matter of the many religions
> and philosophies of both ancient and modern times.
>
> First, let me ask ALL of us here on Theos-Talk:
>
> What do we really KNOW as compared to what we THINK we know
> or BELIEVE we know?

We cannot really KNOW anything in an absolute sense.  We cannot even prove that we exist or
that anything around us exists.
However there is a world of difference between the three items you raise above.

If we think we know then we have probably come to our "thought" due to speculation.   This
of course is extremely unreliable.
If we believe we know, then we have evidence that gives rise to that belief.  I was to say
"I think I know" then I would be fairly convinced that I was right but I would be allowing
for the possibility that I was wrong.  If I was to say "I believe I know" then I would be
pretty convinced I was right but again would be allowing for the possibility of being
wrong.  Both conditions would carry with them ideas that gave me some alternatives of the
view.

If however I say I really know, then I am convinced I am right based on the experiences and
education I have had.   It would mean that whilst I would not rule out the possibility of
being wrong, I would find such an event shattering to my whole system.

Such an event would mean that ALL  the experiences I have had are little more than
illusion, despite evidence to the contrary.  I would need to understand, how and why I was
in error.  This is why I make such a big deal in pointing out why one idea or another is
viewed as wrong.  If I could not be satisfied as to the how and why but was convinced I had
been wrong all along. Then I would never have any reason to believe or follow any idea
again.

>
>
> On the mundane level, take Jake and Govert.  Their "beliefs"
> concerning the Ballards and Prophets are worlds apart.  I know they
> are entitled to their respective opinions.  I am not talking about
> THAT issue.  But what does Jake really know and what does Govert
> really know about the Ballards and Prophets and their relationships
> with HP Blavatsky's Masters?  Can both of their views be true?  And a
> good
> friend of mine would say that both Jake and Govert are wrong:
> Blavatsky was a fraud and her Masters non-existent.  Hence the
> Ballards and Prophets are also frauds and/or self-deluded people.

My perception is that most people seem to be examining, studying the myriad and complex
machinery of nature.
I am not saying that any of the item or idea listed re Prana, Angels, the seven rays etc.
are wrong.  To me they simply pertain to this Alternate nature.  They are interesting and
very diverting subjects but to me at least,  have little value with regard liberation. Some
people because of their nature and slant may need to go that route to find their own
salvation.  I have mentioned in previous Email how ultimately they may achieve this in
their own personal quests and philosophy.  My contention is that it is a very long way
round to a near place and it carries the types of dangers that you would expect on a long
journey.  To some this journey may be essential.  I BELIEVE because of inner conviction
that I have travelled in times past the self same paths and my SENSE is that it has lead me
nowhere, though this is a sense and not true because it has led me to this point now.
However it is this SENSE that drives me to succeed now, where I have clearly failed before.

When it comes to the nature of God or the Absolute, whilst I cannot prove to you I am
right, I BELIEVE that if anyone thinks very deeply about it, they will ultimately come to
the same conclusion.  It took me a very long time to do so.  I believe this because for
years I examined the alternatives and found them all wanting and quite frankly impossible.
Eventually a series of psychic events, revelations etc. brought me to direct  partial
knowledge/experience  of God. At which point it all became pretty clear to me and I could
at last see the problems inherent in other ideas and why they were only partial answers.

Now, as I said, you could question the validity of the experiences and my interpretation of
them.  (Although I there was little to interpret).   For myself at this juncture in my
existence I have the conviction that my understanding is as complete as it can be, given
the limitations of intelligence that my biological machine places on my soul.    In no way
is my knowledge complete, not nearly.  The subject is so vast and profound that no matter
how much I say, I am covering just an atom of it.

Lord Krishna said, with regard the whole universe and the demi-god levels,  said to Arjuna,
"What use is there of all this detailed knowledge, with just a fragment of myself  I create
and maintain this whole universe."

By saying that this material advancement is more or less ultimately worthless, I am in very
good company.

>
>
> Where---pray tell---in this tangle of opinion and belief is the
> truth?  Where in the morass of these beliefs is truth and reality?
> And HOW does one (not convinced of any of the above views) go about
> distangling all of this?  Is it even possible? Or will the next
> person also be engulfed in the morass?

I cannot give you the TRUTH.  I can only tell you what the truth is to me and how and why I
can to what I am convinced is the truth.  You will have to find the truth for yourself,
this truth could take many forms and in navigating the oceans of material existence you may
not recognize it.

For those who have had no experiences for themselves, then you need to start somewhere.  It
doesn't really matter too much where because that which is wrong will ultimately show
itself to be wrong.  My first advice is to speculatively inquire.  Just think about it,
clearly and logically.  Draw up conclusions, find reasons each is wrong and which look
right. This is standard Yogic beginnings.   I think we tend to need help in this process, I
think this digest in fact shows so many different ideas that any reader has a good
opportunity to study alternate possibilities.

Each yogic path has a system to realize it's end.  I have outlined the time honoured path
of the greatest saints.  I believe that anyone who follows that path faithfully will
gradually have that faith rewarded.

>
>
> How many of us on Theos-Talk are willing to acknowledge our
> ignorance (profound ignorance?) of many things?  How many of us are
> willing
> to admit that maybe we have misunderstood things, have deluded
> ourselves with mental images of things which bear little relation
> to reality, etc.
>
> Take Allan and Dallas.  Both have written long treatises on
> Theosophy and "God".  Neither of them are lacking for words!  But
> it would appear their views are worlds apart.  To an outside
> observer which of these two individuals really know what they
> are talking about or are they both caught up in a game of words?
> Or are they . . . . ?  Fill in the blank!
>
> All of the above was written not to point the finger at anyone, but
> to remind ALL of us that if we consider ourselves seekers of truth,
> then each of us should ask ourselves:  How do I know this, that or the
> other?  Is my socalled knowledge really knowledge or just belief?  And
> how can I tell the difference?  Could I be wrong about this, that or
> the other?  etc. etc. etc.
>
> Maybe asking such questions will make us
> a little more openminded to the views of others.  Maybe such an
> approach will make each of us QUESTION our own views and beliefs.
> Maybe such an approach will make us open
> ourselves more to the views of others.  Maybe such an approach will
> encourage us to carefully listen to the view of others.  Sometimes
> I get the impression that many of us are ready to refute what someone
> has said BEFORE they are even finished!!

You of outlined very clearly the path I was describing above of speculation.  It is however
just the beginning.  There comes a point where action has to be taken, otherwise we find
ourselves speculating endlessly.  The attitude of speculation is only a starting point, it
won't lead past itself unless you ultimately take action.  Ultimately therefore the
speculative, constant questioning as you outline has limited value.   Spirituality is
reduced to me intellectual argument.

Thank you for your response to my writing.   The views of others are of great interest to
me.

Allan.

>
>
> To be continued when I have the time!  . . . .
>
> Daniel Caldwell
>