Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00129)

Aug 11th 1998

Dear Kym:

If and when you start to read some of HPB's writings, etc. we will have a
chance to discuss maters.  We will then have a common focus.

So long as you seem to refuse to do this there will be too much time wasted,
as I see from what Caldwell writes, what you post, and what I have said in
the past, which you do not seem to grasp (unless I am much mistaken).

You may qualify my attitude as fanatical, dogmatic, etc... but if you are
generous you will ask for my reasons and not voice your opinions to what I
have to say, until such time as you have evoked from me that which I mean.
There is no question that vocabularies may have to be adjusted.  But this
can be done without invective on either side..

If you are argumentative then there will be no end to recriminations.  Your
problem seems to revolve around the use of words and also concerns itself
with items that you doubt because you have not studied them or their
background in history.  If you desire to learn of these, references can be
given to you, as several of us have done.

Can you succinctly say what it is you want to learn ?

If we are not referring to the same material, endless arguments arise; and,
quite frankly, I have very little time to engage in argument, but a lot of
time to engage in the search for such philosophical truths as we may both be
interested in.

I am of the opinion that some moderation in language is more indicative of
sagacity than the use of expletives, barnyard terms, etc, which only denote
to me a lack of that kind of understanding that leads to true discussion.

I hope you will excuse my bluntness.  I do not claim to be accurate in all
things, but to be constructively critical.  There is much that I do not
understand.  there is much that I have still to learn, and I am humble
enough to say so.  Theosophy as a study for over 55 years has helped me.  I
hope it might be of assistance to you also.  But my age is no criterion as
facts and truth is what anyone seems for in sincerity and honesty.  On those
matters we can have exchanges.

If you are not of the opinion that at the core of each of us is a spiritual
being, then there is very little that remains to be considered.  If on the
other hand you assume there is a Spiritual Being inside each of us, our
present meetings can be turned into a benefit for both, but not solely on
either your or my terms.


With best wishes to you,

Dallas

> Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 8:50 PM
> From: "Kym Smith" <kymsmith@micron.net>
> Subject: Re: #356 (What does Theosophy deal with)

>Dallas wrote:
>
>>I would call that "trunk" the record of the Perennial Philosophy -- the
>>"Wisdom-Religion" -- or, Theosophy.  I say:  We all owe this view, in this
>>era, to HPB, and she, in turn, acted as the recording Agent of the
>>Mahatmas -- who many times gave her their accreditation [ see "Mahatma
>>Letters" ].
>
>How can anyone say that we "all owe this view" or Perennial Philosophy to
HPB?
>
>There were many before her who espoused these same views - she cites those
>individuals over and over again in her writings.
>
>And, if we look at how many people have gotten the message of the Perennial
>Philosophy of HPB's over other such philosophers and "messengers" - HPB has
>reached very, very few.  She can hardly be given the huge amount of credit
>so many on this list insist on giving her when the whole picture in taken
>into context.
>
>Personally, I adore the bold, brazen, brilliant woman HPB was - but
>over-glorifying her borders on insult and fanaticism.  It also does her a
>great disservice, for those who are "worshipped" are compartmentalized,
>fought over, dissected, ridiculed, misunderstood, and sometimes,
>consequently, left only a shell - and always eventually shown to be simply
>HUMAN.
>
>"Believers" often accuse the "non-believers" of destroying what is
>supposedly 'holy' - yet, on close inspection, it is the interpretation of
>the "believers" that introduce the writings and teachings of the
>"Messenger" and if the "believer" adds horror to the teachings, the
>"Messenger" is the one who takes the brunt of the backlash.
>
>Those who "believe" are far more responsible for the fate of any "Prophet"
>or "Messenger" than any "non-believer" could ever be. . .those of you who
>pride yourselves on being selected to spread HPB's message must watch your
>interpretations very carefully.  People of today are turned off by those
>who worship graven images.
>
>And give due credit to others who have helped and continue to help the
>world - it didn't begin or end with HPB.
>
>>Are any of us so important ?
>
>Dallas, have some faith in the creations of God.  Quit insisting that we
>all recognize how puny and ignorant we all are - can you not focus instead
>on the courage, faith, good works, desire to learn, desire to love, desire
>to help others, that are fundamental to humans?  Maybe, Dallas, just maybe
>SOME people WOULD recognize and know a "Mahatma" if they saw one - and
>there are some people on this planet who do wonderful things everyday and
>I've not heard them report a visit from a "Mahatma". . ..
>
>Just because one doesn't get a visit from a "Mahatma" doesn't mean they are
>not worthy to receive one.
>
>Again, give people credit for their good works and do not imply that
>"non-visits" mean some kind of personal shortcoming.  What the hell kind of
>message is that to send out to the people???
>
>
>Kym
>
>
>
>
>
>