Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tt00073)

June 21 1999

Dear Jerry:

Of course you are right, there is no "proof" except to one's self.

PJ only went to India for a few weeks -- nothing compared to a stay of 30 or
more years' experience and search there, all over the country.

However, the stability of THEOSOPHY as a philosophy ought to stand as its
own vindication.

I note that everyone of the so-called "critics" (from the days of HPB to the
present) is nibbling around the edges, but no one has so far demonstrated
that the CORE IDEAS and TEACHINGS are faulty as a whole.

The nature of the criticism is to muddle the minds of inquirers who may have
not yet started on their search.  It is discouraging, as some permit the
words of others to do this to themselves.

The quality of the criticism is not persuasive as it does not deal with the
doctrines and philosophy AS A WHOLE.  It is permissible to ask questions,
but to frame criticism needs deep and thorough study.  I do not detect this.

Who among the critics has gone through the SD as study at least 3 times?
Have they compared it with ISIS, KEY, VOICE ?  Have they annotated it, and
also read the first 10 Vols. of THEOSOPHIST, PATH, LUCIFER ?  In other words
do they KNOW what THEOSOPHY says and teaches?  Do they know what are the
depths and shallowness of THEOSOPHY ?

When that is done they can say they KNOW what Theosophy is, and have been
able to demonstrate consecutively and accurately that certain statements are
WRONG or QUESTIONABLE.  Then they can set to do this, chapter and verse in
hand.  That can be respected.  The constant petty sniping at language and
term usage is a distraction and gets absolutely nowhere in terms of depth.
Who, after 50 years will ever remember these opinions ?  What is their
LASTING importance ?

What does it matter if HPB used either Buddhist or Hindu terms ?  She was
not basing THEOSOPHY on those systems which, in their infancy, were derived
from the PERENNIAL "THEOSOPHY" OF THE AGES.  The Eastern Kabala.

I would say that modern Theosophy is entitled to use any of those terms and
doctrines which it originated in the past.  It does not bow to modern
scholarship.  That is the "Eye Doctrine" at its best.  The HEART DOCTRINE
that deals with man's immortality and perfectibility, that gives hope for
all our problems and woes of the present -- that is important.  That
survives the confusion and the criticisms.

Without that kind of familiarity and real study, opinions on half grasped
ideas alone are what I see emerging.

To me that is relevant.

And I protest the lack of scholarship in THEOSOPHY (not in Buddhism or
Hinduism) which permits critics to speak or write and by unable to support
their views.  The only thing they reveal to me is their lack of real study,
and a desire to stand forth as "wiser than their teachers."

Genuine inquiry is always welcome, as certain of the doctrines are indeed
recondite from our present point of view.  What Theosophy does is to restore
many a lost page of history, and in doing so, it indicates the traces of
that history which is to be found in many systems and theologies or legends
of the past.

Dal


Dallas
dalval@nwc.net 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Jerry
Schueler
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 5:24 AM
To: Theosophy
Subject: Theos-World Response to Dallas


>>  Mr. P. Johnson has proved nothing and is unable to answer questions that
are based on documents available.  >>

Dallas, you are missing the whole point here. You too are making
assumptions. THERE IS NO PROOF.

Whether HPB went to Tibet or not must be taken on faith. She claimed that
she did, but there is no real proof one way or the other.


DOCUMENTS WITH THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT SHOW OTHERWISE


Similarly, her Mahatmas were real human beings, as she herself said many
times. Its pure conjecture as to who they actually were because she
deliberately covered up their identities. The "documents available" are
conflicting and so we each have to make our own assumptions and guesses.

This is Paul's thesis, and I agree with him.  Does it really matter who
they were?
---------------------

DALLAS:

They are THEMSELVES, and not associated with those individuals that PJ
writes about and has elaborated on.  He writes unproven statements (see
Daniel Caldwell's P. J's HOUSE OF CARDS for details.)

PJ in my way of thinking is a sensationalist and sells books.  I told him so
and asked for his proofs -- an answer is still to come.

==========================


HPB taught us the real Mahayana doctrine, so does it matter if she was
actually in Tibet or not?


OF COURSE NOT  -- BUT WHY TELL UNTRUTHS ?  WHERE ONE HAS BEEN IN
UNIMPORTANT, BUT WHAT ONE SAYS IT.		Dal

=========================

Thanks Jerry.


Jerry S.



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



-- 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.