Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00111)

LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote::


> since when is Descartes a solipsist?

I donīt say that he was solipsist.  I wasnīt enough clear.  In fact, he went
beyond his first Meditation.

I meant that, as philosophy showed after Descartes, he didnīt guive any real
reason to go beyond the first Meditation.

And that is the problem of actual epistemology, and the theorie of truth.

I meant that cartesianism - in its historical value- leave us only to the first
Meditation.


>  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?
>

It has to do with all of that.  Itīs a matter of epistemology.  Solipsism is the
negation of a possibility of knowledge.  It brings us just anihilation, not in the
buddhist way of Zen (and that is the problem), but in the way of non-sense of
existence, in Sartreīs way.

And what I say is that Krishnamurtiīs way of leaving us to the Truth, when heard,
is ingenuously cartesian (in the sense of the First Meditation of Descartes), but
he also says, at the same time, that this non-methos leave us to truth.  But if
will agree with him, we have to presuppose a zen buddhist-like understanding of
his words, and of the nature of mind, and the existence of Trascendence, but
didnīt K said that we didnīt had to do that: to assume as true a teaching (even
with simply trust, not with blind faith)?

That is, I think, Kīs internal contradiction.  And the proof that teachings have
value.


>
> >
> >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.

It is very interesting.  Are you talking about an "As above, below"-reasoning that
leave us to accept the theorie of the Seven Roots Races?  What did you exactly
men?  I would like to herad that.


>
> >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.
>

Why were you, as you mentioned in your e-mail, a studier with a Master teacher?
I think that your answer will explain exactly what I trie to say.  You were just
misunderstanding my indication that finding a Master is important.

I donīt think that a Master will guive us the freedom, or the Ilumination.  It is
in ourselves.  And I agree with you here.

But by the same reason you went to a Master teaching, I think (and in that sense)
that it is important to find a Master.  No more than that.

Imagine that an Avatar comes to the world.  Would you tell us that just you have
the right to studie with a Master teacher?  Of course not.

Itīs been just a misunderstanding of the sense of my words (or my attitude), I
think.

> >
>
> >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.

As you can see, I really agree with you.

Friendly,

DAVID C.



-- 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.