Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00420)

August 24th 1998

Dear Murray:

Thanks.  I have always felt that a "bridge" needs strong foundations and the
builders needed to anticipate conditions that might surpass many usual
conditions -- so extra resistance and strength is then built into the
structure -- I have in Belgium, for instance seen Roman bridges that were
about 1900 years old and still being used -- also their roads were still in
use.

While we may advance in thought, and while we may rely on ourselves (as we
all have to) is it not a good idea to be able to compare our ideas with
those that were foundational ?

This always comes back to me when I consider advanced mathematics and its
many aspects -- all, fundamentally are descriptive of special conditions,
whether in time or space, and whether static or mobile -- even imaginary
conditions and situations are included, but the foundation is still
arithmetic, and both  geometry and algebra, of even the most complex kinds,
is only a derivation whereby the accuracy of distinctions is achieved and
described == and even so, that is always for just a moment of time.

As an example consider the computations in time and space and motion needed
to move a mass from a spinning Earth to a spinning Moon, within a spinning
Solar system, and subject to the attraction and influence of a dozen of more
spatial objects of various sizes, dimensions and distances -- and it takes
either computers, or the magnificent mind of a true astronaut to handle
those things. But, when all is said and done those complexities are only
resolvable through and because of the primary bases that we first learn at
the beginning of our school life.  All relates back.

That is what I have in mind as concerns the "original" or "core" teachings
of Theosophy.  If we know them, we can see how the "laws of correspondence
and analogy" run through every aspect of the whole system.

Best wishes as always,

Dallas

> Date: Monday, August 24, 1998 2:51 PM
> From: "Murray Stentiford" <mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz>
> Subject: Re: Approaching the Adepts

>To Dallas:
>
>>Enjoyed your comments on mine on "meeting Adepts."
>>
>>Personally, the reason why I refer to the core or original texts is
because
>>they convey so much.  We may think a lot of things but is our thought "on
>>line?"
>>
>>Having found out how valuable Theosophy is I frequently revisit old
friends
>>and review what I have learned in terms of what I looked at earlier -- a
>>kind of consolidation.  Is it still true ?
>
>There is indeed much in the early texts of modern theosophy, and, like
>other literature of profound content, they can keep on revealing more and
>more, with repeated reading. The experience of coming back to a book we got
>a lot out of some time in the past, and finding new meaning in it is a
>tribute to not only the depth of the book, but to the growth and inner
>sensitization of the person over that time.
>
>How we know our thought is "on line" is something which, of course, each of
>us must determine in their own way. There is a balance to be struck between
>the reliance on outer sources and on inward experience and insight, as we
>assign the sense of authority to our ways of knowing. Inner and outer can
>be used to test the other and develop a best estimate of how we believe the
>universe to be. That is how we find whether our thought is on line, apart
>from experiencing the results of our actions. And not only do people differ
>greatly in where they fall on this spectrum, but the same person can shift
>significantly on the spectrum as they go through life and their inner world
>becomes richer.
>
>So, in a sense the literature is like a stake providing support for a young
>tree as it grows. It is extremely valuable when it is young, but in the
>end, the tree stands of its own strength. To change the metaphor, it is a
>magnificent but partial map of a landscape we have already begun to walk
upon.
>
>>As to the Bridge building.  I agree that it is from both sides.  But it is
>>important to grasp that the potentials are not only inside us, primarily,
>>but also in every other being (mankind included) which seem so "outside"
to
>>our usual "personal" view.
>
>Ah.... I like it. More than a little insight there, I dare to say :-)
>
>Best wishes
>
>Murray
>
>
>
>