Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00490)

>The difference here is trying to learn about the actual mechanisms and
>processes of these fields--how they actually work--rather than trying to
>experience the higher consciousness itself--which can only lead to
individual
>self realization, but does not fulfill the goal of being a working
>"theosophist" whose ultimate purpose is:"to be in the true service of
>humanity".  (See:  Declaration of the United Lodge of Theosophists -
><A HREF="http://www.ult.org/";>http://www.ult.org/</A> )
>

I see no discrepancy between the goal as stated above and self-
realization. In fact, I don't see how one can accomplish much
toward the stated goal without self-realization first.


>The purpose of such study of the *processes* and *mechanisms* through which
>our higher nature expresses itself, is so that eventually it can be
*proven*,
>to ALL skeptical materialists, that the higher nature, as a spiritual
field,
>actually exists.   How else, can we "change the minds of the common people
of
>the race--using the language of the age", as HPB advised--without first
>convincing their gurus, the scientists, artists and writers of the age, of
the
>truths of karma and reincarnation--based on the fundamental cyclic laws of
>such fields.  Isn't that what the work of the theosophical movement is all
>about?
>

I certainly don't agree about the "proven" business, because
I don't think you or I will ever "prove" anything except to ourselves.
Remember, we don't agree on many things here on this list of
Theoosphsts--so how will we ever hope to convince true
skeptics?


>We can never convince any materialist (who influences this failing world
and
>puts us even further behind in evolution) of the realities of karma and
>reincarnation, and thereby cause them to change their perceptions and
reverse
>their selfish actions--by just talking about it to each other, or
experiencing
>higher consciousness in meditation--without first learning to describe a
>logical process that everyone can understand, and that is consistent with
all
>other scientifically proven theories.

Hopefully it is the development of just such a "logical process" that
we are currently working on here on this list (?). I suspect that we
will first have to get Theosophists to agree on just what karma and
reincarnationa re and how they work, before we will ever be able
to convince skeptics.


>The ultimate scientific conclusion in the SD is that everything in the
>universe, from spirit to matter, and all their "forms" and "expressions",
are
>the result of vibrating fields of "electrical energies" whose causes and
>effects are based on the fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity.  It
>behooves us all, as theosophical "companions", to not only study and
"practice
>the three "objects", but to also study those spiritual-scientific teachings
of
>HPB, "so as to be better able to help and teach others".
>

While I fully agree with you here, how do you propose to "study"
these things when we can't agree on what they are?

Jerry S.