Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00294)

In a message dated 1/21/99 4:20:36 PM, schuelergerald@optec-hq.optec.army.mil
writes:

>>>In that time there has been a great deal of animosity and
>personal insults expressed between some members. Sarcasm and clever
>quips lace a number of responses...>>
>
>While it may appear this way, I don't think that this is really what is
>going on. We are, I hope, criticising viewpoints and opinions and
>possibly conclusions reached by fellow students. We are not, I would
>hope, insulting each other personally. When I have written that Dallas
>and Leon, for example, sound very much like fundamentalists, then it
>should be clear to everyone that this is how their words come across to
>me as I read them--I have never met face to face with either. They can
>take my perception, and either agree or disagree, but if they disagree
>then I would hope that they change somewhat their writing style which
>strongly suggests a "blinders on" fundamentalist viewpoint that they may
>in fact have or not have.  On the other hand, I have been accused of
>being a black magician as well as a Blavatsky hater and critic. I have
>defended my position by admitting that while I do find some errors in
>her writings, and that I disagree on one or two of her points, on the
>whole I agree with her.  Actually, the very notion that someone like
>myself who has been studying Theosophy for over 30 years can have
>disagreements should be of interest to everyone on the list. I found it
>interesting, for example, that Alan Bain does not believe in
>reincarnation and yet is a good Theosophist.  The Theosophical umbrella
>is broad, and if this broadness bothers anyone, then perhaps that person
>should look within to see why?

You are right.  Appearances can certainly deceive.  It's obvious by reading
this personal response to a perfectly impersonal statement--that you will
never cease to defend yourself by personally accusing, by name, those who
disagree with you but have never accused you of anything--especially something
so libelous as calling someone a "black magician"... Although, we may have
questioned whether or not you were defending them.

But, to say you haven't accused us of being fundamentalists in one breath and
in the next breath accusing us of having a fundamentalist writing style, is
quite ludicrous.  What does that mean?  It's like my saying, I disagree with
you because you have a "disagreeable" writing style.  (You may have, but I
certainly don't disagree with your wrong opinions about theosophy for that
silly non-philosophical or unscientific reason.)  I can't speak for Dallas,
but my "fundamentalism", if any, is a firm belief in the three fundamental
principles (of theosophy), and it's beyond my comprehension why you insist on
making that word a pejorative.

Could we assume from those remarks that you do not believe in these
fundamental principles and, therefore, your statements about being a
theosophist and having studied it for 30 years is a lot of hot air?  If so,
then what are we doing in a theosophical forum discussing theosophy with you?
Or, judging from that, can we be justified in believing that any opinions you
have about anything is just so much childish and provocative babble.  It's my
experience that in all these discussions, whenever a point was made that
depended on a knowledge of the principles of theosophy, you never once
answered them on the theosophical grounds that they were asked, but simply
diverted the answer to a discussion of non sequiturs based on questionable
exoteric scriptural references, or about our personal natures--with enough
psychologizing to pump up your own ego but makes no sense in philosophical
discussions.  Is that the kind of "writing style" you want Dallas and me to
change to?

For one who keeps on insisting that 30 years of theosophical study makes one a
credible theosophist, along with such a weak, opinionated, "authority" name-
dropping example (BTW, who is Alan Bain, and how can YOU know what kind of
theosophist he is?)--used to "prove" that you, too, can be a non-believing"
theosophist--(Why should that be of interest to anyone?)--I can't see how you
can conclude that one can also be a theosophist while disbelieving in
reincarnation.  That's such a contradiction in terms, as to be beyond belief.
I would like to think that one can only be a theosophist (in the sense of
having a conviction of its truth) who thoroughly understands its fundamental
principles that make reincarnation and karma a logical imperative.  To not
believe in reincarnation, is not to belive in the fundamentals, which leads to
the logical conclusion that such a one is an anti-theosophist.  (Whatever that
means--but certainly, not a theosophist).

In case you don't know--(which, in my view would be quite unbelievable after
"30 years of study")--the scientific philosophy of theosophy teaches that the
universe is a totally interdependent unity of a potential diversity consisting
of seven principles (7 fields of consciousness linked to 7 fields of matter)
emanated from common roots of noumenal "spirit" and "substance" that are "in
coadunation but not in consubstantiality", and that all appearances are but
the illusion of constant change of form but no change in essential totality
(of consciousness and substance)... And, further, it teaches of the eternal
retention of all patterns of experiential knowledge and inherent wisdom as
vibratory patterns--with the universal consciousness being the eternal
repository of all such accumulated "information" through countless manvantaric
cycles leading to constant growth toward ultimate unity, and so on up the
ladder through new paths of infinite possibilities of experience.  It doesn't
take any "authorities", Buddhist or otherwise to verify that--or refute it.
But it does take a serious theosophist to understand it in all its
ramifications--based on the three fundamentals and their derivative laws and
philosophical-scientific implications.

If you would like to expand on this or pick it apart, that's perfectly OK with
me.  But, let's stick to legitimate discussion based on logical scientific and
philosophical arguments rather than dependence on authorities or scriptural
references.  (Especially those connected with any organized religion that has
no primary authority whatsoever).

To not understand (or try to understand) this true nature of the universe, its
evolution and all its ramifications, scientifically, philosophically and
ethically, makes one a "theosophist" in name only...  Although, I can
understand how one can mistakenly call himself a theosophist who practices the
ethics, but has no understanding of or conviction based on the fundamental
science and philosophy.  However, it would behoove such a one who wishes to
become a real theosophist through conviction rather than blind belief, to ask
questions, listen and consider, and make no criticisms or judgments until the
fundamental science and philosophy of theosophy is thoroughly understood.

LHM