Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00254)

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>
> To me, Theosophy is a knowledge thing, and not a belief thing.

So you think Theosophical knowledge is possible without belief?  Perhaps it is,
but not in its more potent form. A person without belief/faith is a pretty
powerless person.
>
> The use of an appelation such as "Maha Chohan 82" is gratuitous and an
> insult to the condition and functions of a "Maha Chohan."

You are really saying that you don't BELIEVE that this was dictated by the Maha
Chohan. Fine with me. However, I believe it was.

> Anyone who has the audacity to employ such a designation does
> not know what a "Maha Chohan" is or does.

Again, you are doing nothing more than stating your belief, without backing it
up with anything substantial.

>  So I object to
> anything so attributed [to the MC], realizing that it stems from the psychic rather than from the spritual planes.

Again, you are stating your belief and I can state mine: "I am realizing that it
stems from the spiritual rather than from the psychic planes."

> A "spiritual" communication when deserved relates
> to some reasonable and logical function of which the recipient is already
> well aware and can fit the added information into what he already knows.
> Further such messages are usually strictly private and are not to be
> broadcast unless such is ordered as part of the message.  See the MAHATMA
> LETTERS for these conditions and restrictions.

The masters have used many ways of communicating throughout the ages. Both
public and private forms of communication have been used. The Prophets of Israel
were delivering messages from their God quite publically, many times.

> ========================================
>
> >> If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a
> nowhere
> >> land.
> >
> >Then, please, explain also what is, in your opinion, so very "untheosophic"
> >about these statements.
>
> =========================================
>
> DALLAS :
>
> Persoanlly I have no particular fault with the statements but the reason WHY
> does not seem to be given nor any link to karma offered.

I only quoted one or two pages. Karma etc is being treated in many other places.

> The situation
> described is one that we all sense and does not need any special emphasis
> that I can see.

Often it is the job of those with a spiritual mission to remind people about
things they know, or "should know", but may fail to apply.

>
> DALLAS:
>
> Misunderstanding of what I meant to say.
>
> It is that:  our intuitions and spiritual communications from the HIGHER
> SELF, being universal in scope have little to do with our personal
> situations -- limited by our focus on personal desire.

It is naturally the desire of the beings in higher spheres to see us succeed in
transcending suffering and limitation. To provide pracical advice to us as to
how to accomplish this makes a whole lot of sense to me. If they didn't, I would
have a hard time believeing in their authenticity.

Bjorn