Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00111)

In a message dated 1/5/99 10:27:26 PM, Jerry S wrote:

>I used to be a convinced Episcopal. Then I became a convinced
>Christian Scientist. Then a convinced yogi.  Then a convinced
>Tantrist.  Then a convinced Theosophist.  If life has taught me
>anything at all it is to always hold fast to doubt and to think for
>yourself.  I have vowed to never be a convinced anything.

There's nothing wrong with doubt.  But, then, are we wrong to assume that you
are now as unconvinced of theosophy as you are about all those other
convictions that came before?  Are you also unconvinced of the psychological
theories that got you your degrees?  If so, then what makes you such an expert
about anything--including Theosophy or the motives of theosophists you claim
have attacked your views unjustifiably?

Are you not even convinced of the brilliance of your presumptions?  Or,
convinced you're one who knows everything about how everyone else thinks?  Or,
convinced of the validity of the unproved psychological theories you base your
judgments on?  Or, convinced that your two PhD's and a passel of
psychoanalytical jargon--that misinterpreted everyone's motives who called you
out on your defense of Tantric sex (as a black magic process), Dugpas,
Crowley, et al., plus your obvious attempts to discredit HPB (and missed the
mark on all counts by a country mile)--gives you some sort of authority as a
brilliant commentator on any of the subjects YOU brought up?

If not, then what are you convinced of?  How can anyone be taken seriously who
is not even convinced that what he is saying is correct or true?  Judging by
the number of convictions you had in the past, and could so easily be switched
from one to another, I wonder if you ever knew very much about anything you
ever claimed to know--including psychology and theosophy--posing as if you
were a fully studied and convinced expert in both?  Or, are your statements
about theosophy and its teachers and your personal digs and psychologizing
(that started this controversy) just off-the-wall opinions based on nothing at
all, and simply designed to provoke argument?  So, what are those degrees
(mentioned in your previous post) worth--other than what it cost in money,
time and energy to get them?  Lip service about one's spirituality and
brotherhood holds no credibility over one's actions and attitudes.  And,
academic credentials, by themselves, don't make anyone an authority on
anything.

Of course, thinking for oneself is highly laudable. . . Provided one has
sufficient motivation, time and energy to study every hypothesis thoroughly,
and test every conclusion for oneself.  Doesn't the fact that your knowledge
of psychology rests on the theories and work of those (and a selected few at
that) who came before you or taught you--based on their authority, their
unverified theories, and their opinions and interpretations--make it obvious
that whatever convictions you do have or ever had in the past aren't worth a
hill of beans in a reasoned debate based on real, first hand knowledge of
theosophy (as the synthesis of Science, religion and philosophy gathered over
many thousands of years by many hundreds if not thousands of trained
observers)?

You've constantly misinterpreted the motives of all those who have disagreed
with your views, and since you admittedly have no convictions, your arguments
designed to discredit HPB, and now Dallas and me, have no theosophical or
psychological validity whatsoever.  In fact, your indirect (and recently,
pompously direct) psychologizing of us is one helluva funny joke.:-);-)  z

I know people who have gotten their scientific degrees by memorizing every
formula they read in their textbooks, and writing their theses by quoting or
paraphrasing the work done by those who taught them or came before them.  I
also know others who never memorized a formula, but whenever required, derived
them from fundamental scientific principles, and wrote their theses, based
solely on their own original hypothesis, reasoned thinking and careful
experimentation.  I wonder which one of those could maybe end up getting a
Nobel prize, and in which category we each imagine ourselves to be with
respect to this discussion?  So, if the shoe fits. . . (I'm willing to wear
it.:-)

Be assured there's no intention to be personal, although its difficult when
you continue on such a level (by innuendo, psychologizing and other
diversionary tactics) to side track (I won't say attack:-) those who disagree
with you.  So, let's cut out all this pointless argumentation and go back, if
that's our game, to counseling and psychologizing people who are more ignorant
than we are, or discussing theosophy so that we all may be better able to
understand it, and consequently, "be better able to help and teach others".:-)

In the meantime, I think everyone has the right to question theosophy and the
statements made in the S.D.--but without personally denigrating its teachers'
credibility, or making contrary assertions unless they have sufficient
demonstrable subjective or objective proof consistent with fundamental
principles (and, not such questionable proof as reference to exoteric or so
called "esoteric" organized religious scriptural sources that are much later
than the Book of Dzyan) .  (I hope we could, at least, agree on those.)

Theosophy cannot be argued against, since it is based on a book written more
than 8,000 years ago which rests on fundamental principles that either have to
be accepted or not as being valid.  If not so accepted in all their aspects,
or if there is any inconsistency on any level, then the whole structure falls
apart and no conviction is possible.  Without such conviction of the truths of
theosophy as a consistent and unassailable body of knowledge, one cannot do
anything but take, blindly, whatever his guru, his mind or his heart tells him
is the truth. . . Each for himself or herself, and hopefully, resist any
attempt to proselytize other serious students and/or divert them from the
knowledge gained by their own self devised and self determined efforts.

This is not to say, that it's improper to correct anyone who may have a wrong
interpretation or a wrong view of theosophy.  But this correction can only be
based on the original teachings given out in the S.D.  And, no later
scriptures have any validity other than their right to have their own
interpretation--which may be correct or not--but can never be "authoritative"
in any case.  The only authentic source or references are the words of the
original teachers who wrote, or understood the Book of Dzyan, from which all
the root teachings of theosophy and all subsequent religions originate.  And,
even then, those teachers (including their "messenger," HPB) cannot be
authoritative since the philosophy must stand or fall on its own
reasonableness and consistency in explaining ALL the laws and actions of the
universe and its parts, as well as the origins, evolution and purpose of all
the sentient beings in it.

Of course, any practice or theory presented by any "modern" or "ancient"
religion, if not consistent with these teachings and the fundamental
principles they rest on, will have no validity whatsoever as an argument for
or against theosophy.  Even inadvertent minor errors, whether typographical,
mistranslations, or otherwise made by the authors, editors or printers of the
S.D. should have no bearing on any discussion of theosophy as a science, as a
philosophy, or as a "wisdom religion."

LHM