Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00284)

Aug 16th 1998

Dear Bjorn:

Allow me to interject some comments below

Dal

> Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 3:19 PM
> From: "Bjorn Roxendal" <roxendal@usa.net>
> Subject: Re: ECP Masters

>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.
======================================
DALLAS
I don't think that the securing of "power" is the be-all and end-all of our
living.

If we study and learn and test and prove something we have "faith" or
"belief" in our work and our memory of it.  that kind of faith and belief I
agree we should have.

What I do object to is the unquestioning faith and belief of many who either
trust all the read, or trust those who would impose their ideas on them for
one reason or another.  It is for this reason that I present ideas and
reasonibgs and leave it to others to decide if they have any value.

===============================================

>>
>> 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.

====================================================
DALLAS

I would need far more than a declaration.  When was it said, to whom was it
said, under what crisis or circumstances was this siad ?  Was it necessary
to say it ?  and to those persons ?  When these questions are satisfactorily
answerd the n I will give it some weight.  But it seems tome tha it is a
repetition on the main of what has been said before.  So why the reminder ?

===================================================
>
>> 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."
==================================

POSSIBLY TRUE.  CAN YOU OR I VERIFY THIS ?

=================================================

>
>> 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.
>
========================================
DALLAS
Those are the claims made.  Now can they be substantiated ?

==========================================

>> >> 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
>
====================================

Dear Bjorn:

It is not fair to you or t me to try and debate a statement such as that
which is made.  You note that I endorse that which is true and useful in it.
But I question the necessity for attributing this to a "Maha Chohan" and
especially the attachment of a NUMBER.  That is highly curious.

Best wishes.

Dallas

==============================