Theos-Talk Archives (April 1999 Message tt00079)

Jerry,

> And I have never yet read any
> quote by you, Dallas, or anyone else, that seemed to be
> against anything I have said.  When a quote is given, it shows
> me how that person interprets the quoted words, but it
> doesn't "prove" anything at all in most cases.

When a qoute is given it shows what the author *actually* said, and then we
can look at it and see if it agrees or not with our interpretations, views,
and especially claims about the authors views.

I think a number of qoutes from HPB have been put forward that have shown
that HPB and the Masters "go against" what you have said.  For example you
stated that HPB taught the 'single lifetime liberation view'.  I provided
the qoute from the Voice of the Silence where she stated this was a rare
exception.  You put the view that anyone who believed in future rebirths
rather than 'single lifetime liberation' was suffering from "self defeating
attitudes" and afraid of Liberation.  I provided the passage from the 3rd
Fundamental Proposition in the SD to show that the longer term view is
exactly what HPB, KH and M teach, and asked does that mean they also suffer
"self defeating attitudes".

With regards Tibetan Buddhism's views of 'single life time liberation' I
offered you qoutes from Edward Conze and from the Dalai Lama where they both
emphasised the neccessity of future rebirths.

You said "imagination" is the only way to reach the goal, to cross the
'abyss'.  You used Krishnamurti, among others as support for this.  I
offered a qoute from Krishnamurti showing he believed the exact opposite.

According to you, all the worlds mystics and occultists believe
"imagination" is the ONLY way to reach the top of the spiritual mountain.  I
put forward brief summaries from a number of schools (Hinduism, Buddhism,
Theosophy) that showed this clearly was not the case. They teach many ways.
I could bring forward qoutes from each school to demonstrate that, if you
wish, but I don't think most  people would regard that as necessary.  What I
would doubt is that either of us could  find a qoute from HPB's works to
support this view, or evidence from other spiritual traditions, that all the
worlds mystics, occultists, yogas etc believe that  "imagination" is the
ONLY way.

So I would disagree that qoutes don't prove anything. It is true to say that
the written word doesn't *prove* the 'reality' it professes to point to.
But in many cases what they can show is whether the claims you and I make
about the views of others, especially of HPB and the Masters, are valid.
For example:

> And I really have provided some quotes, Peter. The idea
> that both good and bad karma must be eliminated is
> right in the Inner Group Teachings as I have said many
> times just to have you keep ignoring it.

I don't believe this is something I would have ignored if you had put this
to me.   But that aside, this is not a qoute, it is a claim which tells us
virtually nothing about what HPB may or may not have meant until we
substantiate it with *her words* (ie a quote) or a more specific reference.
That way we can see what she was refering to and it what context it was
said, and go on from there.

You are right in that HPB is reported to have said that both good and bad
Karma need to be got rid of. But if you go to page 10 of The Inner Group
Teachings, that is all that is stated at that place.  There is no reference
to doing it in a single lifetime nor anything else connected with what you
were saying.  The emphasis in that passage seems to be that we need to get
rid of 'good' and not just 'bad' karma.

> All we have are our opinions. The notion that we can quote
> "sources" and be impersonal is ridiculous as the history
> of Christianity clearly shows.

I didn't suggest that to qoute sources is to be impersonal.  But if we claim
Theosophy, Buddhism, HPB etc puts a certain view, or if we claim that our
view is the same as "....." then showing our sources can help substantiate
what we are saying.  It may mean we have to return to that source a number
of times to clarify, and that can make it all the richer.  Obviously we need
to be free to speak without having to back up every thought with a
reference, but when we repeatedly put forward a contentious view and say HPB
and the Masters agree with it, then we do need to back it up.

> >> By showing what my 'sources' are it allows other members of the list
> to look them up for themselves and draw their own conclusions.>>
>
> Agreed. But please quit getting all upset when my conclusion
> doesn't agree with yours.  Some folks on this list seem to have
> the idea that by quoting source material everyone will jump
> into line with their interpretation of the quote and get angry
> when this doesn't happen.

Actually this just doesn't fit for me at all.  I observe that you regularly
attribute emotional states of your choosing along with questionable motives
to people in this group who challenge your views.  Why you do this I don't
even want to start considering.  That's not what I joined this group for.

So, let's continue to explore and weigh up our different Theosophical
understandings on their merits shall we.  That way we can ALL help each
other.  I would like that.

Peter


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.