Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00506)

>
>The three objects are to be practiced SIMULTANEOUSLY.  There is no "first"
>this, then that.  Enlightenment comes about through a "synthesis" of all
three
>Natures-- Body, Mind and Spirit.
>

But sometimes trying to help people backfires and hurts them
more than if they had been left alone. How does one know what
help is "appropriate" in any given situation (hunger, shelter, etc
are obvious but on the higher rungs of Maslow's pyramid is
gets trickier)?  The TV show Angels oftens shows this when
helping others interfers with their free will. The lower Angels
want to rush in and help, while the higher Angels realize that
the person must be allowed to exercise their free will.


>Study and practice requires no self-realization, but only "self devised and
>self determined efforts. . . with the (correct) end and purpose in view".

I find this to be a scary concept since there is no way to
know what "the (correct) end and purpose " is and thus you
jump to your own conclusions and rush in...


>Self realization, by itself, is not theosophy--nor is it the work and
>fulfillment of the "Theosophical Movement".

Without self-realization, Theosophy is no better than any other
religion. Every world religion, to my knowledge, seeks to help
humanity, so whats the difference?


> If it were, why did HPB waste
>millions of words on the Secret Doctrine with almost no mention of
spiritual
>practices?  That was left for each individual student to attain through
>his/her own self devised and self determined efforts.  For that, she gave
us
>the Voice of the Silence, and pointed us to the Tao Te-Ching, the I-Ching,
>Patanjali, the Dalai Lama and the whole Mahayana Buddhist Canon.  Remember,
>the Secret Doctrine is the "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy"
>Which comes first? -- the chicken or the egg?  Is the Universe empty or
full?
>Ask HPB.
>>

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.


>You don't have to agree.

Well, thats a relief.


> Nor do we have to prove anything.

That is good, because we can't.


And, there is no
>such thing as a "true" skeptic when it comes to theosophy.  The phrase,
"true
>skeptics" is an oxymoron, since they have "opinions" only, ...

What you are giving me right here, my friend, is your own opinion.


>... also "proves" all
>that was written in the S.D. to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but
>the truth.

Wow! I wish I could share your overjealous enthusiasm. However, you
still have not convinced me or probably very many others. When you
take something as big as the SD and state that everything in it has to
be true, then you are letting yourself in for a great fall someday.


> (In this case, about the material world only).  We have yet to
>prove our ABC theories that "scientifically" explain the fundamental laws
on
>the mental and spiritual planes.  But, they, too, are fully explained ("for
>the intuitive student") in the S.D.  (Without such intuition, you might as
>well study Dr. Suess :-)
>

No, they are not. Spiritual law is beyond human minds to
demonstrate one way or another. Not even "intuitive" students
can "fully explain" material laws let alone spiritual ones. You
appear to be living in a deterministic world, which is an ivory tower.


>And when that is accomplished, and a final theory results that satisfies
all
>the fundamental principles, as well as correlates with all current
scientific
>theories--experiments will be devised that will prove beyond a shadow of a
>doubt that the conscious, intelligent universe, and all beings in it,
consist
>of a marriage of the fields ...

Based upon my knowledge of the fundametal limitations of the human
mind, I will not hold my breath.


>  And, which
>act on all planes (analogously and correspondingly) in conformance with the
>laws of cycles and periodicity

Your logic is flawed because no living being has such conformance.

>Such an irrefutable scientific proof will convince ...

You are fooling yourself. I will feel very sorry for you when
your bubble finally pops.


>How can the things talked about on this list have anything to do with
>developing a "scientific theory" of universal "ACTION" which is the root
and
>cause of karma  and reincarnation?  Such a theory is already developed.

Indeed it is. Its called the theory of causation. Big deal.


> The
>way to agree about how karma and reincarnation works is to study the
>scientific principles--as clearly taught in the S.D.--that determine their
>action.
>

This has been going on for 100 years now, with little result. I don't
expect much better results during the next 100 years either. The
only way to come to any real understanding of reincarnation is to
experience it and remember. And even then your "understanding"
will consist only of your own interpretation of your own experiences.


>Alleged theosophists who cannot agree on these ideas, just haven't studied
the
>Secret Doctrine deep enough...

This is pure bullshit and sounds a lot like the crap that Dallas and Frank
have put out. You are saying here that anyone who doesn't agree with you
is not a "real" Theosophist. Whether you intended to say this or not, this
is
what you are saying here. Your fundamentalism is a bit more than I can take.
Your compassion and forgiveness of others does not show itself in
your words.

Jerry S.