Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00108)

In a message dated 06/05/00 9:20:35 AM, ernesto@bmu.com.pe (David C.) writes:

>Dear Mr. Leon: You wrote:
>
>> How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses
>> actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did?  How can we be
>>sure that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted
>> politician), is telling the truth?  Or, that he was not experiencing, a 
self
>> generated delusion?  How can we be sure that the 6,000 people weren't
>> mass hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a 
>> fakir  disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable 
times
>> in India?
>
>There is a photograph!  So, hypnotism is out of a serious possibility. Of
>course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick.  But, what about the
>testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that Todd sent us in a previous
>e-mail?

Photo's are meaningless as any means to evaluate what is in the hearts and 
minds of their subjects. Testimonials also carry no weight, whatsoever, in 
any discussion of what is truth or not. To believe anyone's testimony, no 
matter who they are or what their authority, without thorough investigation 
and testing for oneself, on both intuitive and rational levels, is utter 
foolishness.
>
>Do they also lie?  Hard to believe that there is like a complot of years
>made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people ... the 
>photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, the two 
different >eyewitnesses.

Yes, judging from all the false information given out in this world related 
to religion, government, economics, business, etc., it's best for us to 
assume that everyone lies until it is proven different.  Eyewitnesses are 
also very unreliable.  Ask any police inspector, how different the stories 
are for every eyewitness to the same crime.
>
>The topic of this discussion may certainly provoke scepticism.  That is
>also my case. But I think that scepticism is a good tool for investigation, 
>just if we donīt loose its place.

The only investigation that one can rely on is that which he personally 
engages in.  Talking about it in open forum, based on other people's beliefs 
or opinions, is a meaningless exercise in futility.
>
>If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in esoterism?
> Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, The Mahatma 
>Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and identity of the so 
>called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the matter were discussed in a 
>court? If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti
>dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldnīt we
>live in the jail of Descartesīsolipsism?

Speaking for myself... The only reason I started studies in esotericism is 
because I was a skeptic.  One Master teacher once told me that the reason why 
I was his best student, is because I questioned everything he said, and gave 
him the opportunity to question himself and find ways to explain it better to 
his other students.  So, for any student of esotericism, once started, and 
not finding any holes in the fundamental truths, it becomes easy to read and 
follow the teachings of anyone who bases his teachings on those same 
fundamentals.  The only thing that matters is what the Masters say, not who 
they are.  Also, since when is Descartes a solipsist?  And, even if he was, 
what has solipsism got to do with careful subjective and objective evaluation 
of the nature of reality -- from any point of view?
>
>So, will we have to believe in Cremeīs claims?  I donīt mean that.  Letīs
>investigate that patiently, thatīs all.  If that were true, it would be
>tremendous to the world.  Would that make us wise?.  The only conffirmation
>of the claim, of corse, not.  But, woudnīt that put us in the Way of a 
Master?
> Is that not important?

So investigate for yourself, and leave others to do the same.  I've already 
investigated Creme, and conclude that he is an impostor and a dangerous 
demagogue.  There's nothing in what you say that would "put us in the Way of 
a Master."  Each one of us can find our own Master within, and by so doing, 
find that Way for ourselves.
>
>Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root
>Races?  Because HPB thaught that?  No.  Because she said she learned it
>from the Masters.  And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL 
>actual reputated antrophology and archeology .  Certainly, the existence of 
>man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in 
>the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view.
>
We don't believe in the seven root races because HPB taught it, or got it 
from the Masters -- but only if we understand the fundamental truths that 
leave us no alternative but to consider it a valid conclusion. So, who cares 
what the scientists believe?  They are caught in the trap of reductive and 
empirical thinking of their own making.  So, what difference does that make 
to our own individual searches for truth (both scientifically and philosophica
lly, as well as spiritually)?  Didn't HPB call the Secret Doctrine, "a 
synthesis of science, religion and philosophy"?  How can we separate them -- 
if we want to practice universal brotherhood and be effective Bodhisattvas or 
Masters in this or a future life?  That's what HPB meant when she said 
"theosophy is practical idealism."

>So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding
>a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more?
>Krishnamurti would say no, of course.  But he could say that after he 
received
>a instruction.  And if we take seriously his words, donīt we see that they
>leave us to the Descartesīsolipsism?  (Remember also Govertīs paper).  
>But if  we also think that Kīs non method leave us to freedom ... is it not 
also
>a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non
>method?

That makes no sense.  What these people say or do (including Govert) has no 
relevance to our own search for truth or the method of finding enlightenment. 
 Whether their interpretations of theosophy, methods or other teachings are 
right or wrong, is for each of us to find out for ourselves, and not get 
embroiled in pointless arguments about it. My best advice for any of us who 
can't find their truths in HPB and the Masters, is to go study all of them, 
and separate the chaff from the wheat for themselves. 
>
>Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as Krishnamurti
>emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of understanding that ideas,
>a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures as we are now, a instrumental
>and valuable, though transitorius tool), wouldnīt we be in the non-sense of
>existence experimented by Sartre?

I don't understand what you are saying.  But, both Krishnamurti and Sartre 
have given us valid ideas based on their particular and individual points of 
view.  It's up to us, individually, to synthesize these ideas and place them 
in their proper perspective... After which, we will find the real truth that 
underlies them both.  Theosophy does just that in its overall combined 
teaching of both the heart and the head doctrine -- which are both necessary 
to arrive at a true Self realization.  The universe is a combination and 
interplay of both spirit and matter. Even Buddhi as the vehicle of spirit is, 
in itself, material in essence, as is Manas... Both of which are linked with 
each other as well, as with all our lower natures, through the vibrational 
energies or "fields" of manifest space -- down to the quarks themselves that 
make up our physical bodies.  How could they be causative, karma connected, 
and interact with each other, if they were not all composed of the same 
substance?  The only thing that is separate from all this "substance," is our 
spirit alone, linked to the "Supreme Spirit" which, together, the roots of 
our awareness and the power of our will, both of which resides in the 
ubiquitous and timeless zero-point of absolute stillness plus the infinite 
energy of absolute motion surrounding it.  All else is substance or matter 
rooted in "awakened" or manifest motion in time. To "realize" (experience) 
this in all its aspects, in both heart and mind, is the goal of 
"enlightenment" -- as Patanjali (as well as HPB and WQJ) so clearly points 
out.  Unfortunately, Krishnamurti, as well as many other neo-theosophists, 
before and since, although mostly correct as far as they go, have only given 
part of the total picture.  The Head and Heart Doctrines cannot be separated 
-- no matter how cleverly the neo-theosphists argue their interpretations, 
contrived mysticisms, and self serving and/or  particular points of view. 

>We donīt know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others),
>but we feel that HPBīs are serious ideas to be considered.  How much more 
>important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master!.

But there is only one "Master" that we have to know... And, that is the one 
that is within us -- and always has been.  We can only get to know that 
Master by "learning" to hear its "Voice in the Silence" (after we "stop" our 
own minds and its discursive thinking about what and whom we are conditioned 
to believe) and begin to experience it (or them) for ourselves.  The Masters 
that HPB learned from, can be believed in solely by the truths they teach -- 
which we all are required (as instructed by HPB) to verify for ourselves.  
>
>So, Leon, I think that this topic of discussion IS important.

Yes, very important... But only to open our own minds, balance out intuition 
with our reason, and to counteract the false prophets and proselytizers of 
spiritual enlightenment who enjoin (mesmerize, or force) us to follow their 
rules of blind faith and credulous belief in their supposed "authorities" -- 
dressed up in all sorts of religious, mystical and political garbs -- who, 
while lip servicing brotherhood and peace, do nothing more than separate and 
confuse the unthinking masses, distort or deny the fundamental theosophical 
truths, and increase the power of these "dictators," their "army's of the 
Lord," so to speak (their police "enforcers," "priests," or economic and 
governmental converts) over their sheep-like "believers" -- who blindly 
follow their leaders and carry out their orders (no matter how unfairly or 
oppressively) to the detriment of those not in their group or members of 
their religions, political and economic organizations, or so called, 
"esoteric Lodges" (under whatever particular names they go by).  

So, while we may look into these self proclaimed prophets or masters for 
ourselves, talking about them here, on a personal level, is a waste of time 
and energy. I'm glad that the one who first brought it up finally figured 
that out for himself.  So, it's time we all dropped the subject... Although 
this doesn't mean stopping discussion of the essence of any of their their 
teachings that may be in conformance with the "fundamental principles" (along 
with the deductive truths they support).

LHM

-- 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.