Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00044)

Dear Jim:

I think there is great value in abandoning "isms" as a basis for
our thinking. Better to think freely.

If one desires to compare our thinking with others then better
make sure that both are in this free mode.

The various "isms" seem to frame mind into limits. The free mind
looks at those limits, around them, through them and asks what
their source its, and wonders why the frames are either necessary
or chosen.

Placing Man in front of and also INSIDE his Universe, what
relations emerge? What are the similarities? To me this is what
Theosophy does and without demanding any partisanship.

In another post today someone asked for the basis of Theosophy
and thinking. I say it is lour Universe and we all share in it.

Theosophy shows how ancient thinkers have approached the puzzle
and solved it. We can use their methods or develop our own.
There is freedom here and no boundaries are set. AND THERE IS NO
DEMAND THAT "OUR FAITH" BE HANDED OVER TO SOMEONE ELSE.

Theosophy does indeed separate "thinking" from "desiring, and
feeling." This is a difficult thing for us as presently
KAMA-MANASIC (desire-mind) beings to do.

But all it demonstrates is that there is in each of us an ENTITY
which is above and beyond the PERSONAL MIND, and the PERSONAL
DESIRE faculty. We could call it BUDDHI-MANAS (or the WISE MIND)
and ascribe an enormous antiquity to it in association with ATMA
(or the Ray of the Universal Spirit --- the HIGHER SELF ---
within each of us).

H.P.B. speaks of this in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, and Mr. Judge uses
this as a basic concept in THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY. It is used
throughout the S.D. and I see no reason not to direct inquirers
to those books as they explain in better ways than I feel I can.
It is also better to refer to those ORIGINAL TEXTS from which I
learned, than to trust my interpretations.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rodak [mailto:rodakjl@pcola.gulf.net]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:53 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Faith vs. Fact


> Jim Rodak comments:
>
> The whole point of my initial comments was to suggest that we
must
> consciously "think" - I mean REALLY "think" - about what it is
that we
have
> come to believe, to trust, to have put our faith in. I am of
the opinion
> that when considering and examining metaphysical matters in
particular,
that
> it is well-advised that we observe and ponder from a safe
intellectual
> distance and be fully aware that what in actuality we are
seriously
> considering are merely the thoughts, feelings, speculations,
hypotheses,
> theories, &etc. of someone else who conceived and formulated
their
position
> from someone elses thoughts, feelings, speculations,
hypotheses, theories,
> &etc. ad infinitum.

> In other words, don't get duped into becoming a "true believer"
(See Eric
Hoffer's >superlative book "The True Believer) because you have
what you
believe to be an >existential need for explanations of who you
are, what
your purpose is, and where it all >leads to. Consider the
sources but come
to your OWN conclusions after careful and >thoughtful rumination
and
reflection.

> There seems to be such an obsessive-compulsive longing to make
sense of
> ourselves and the world about us; with so many competing
factions
offering -
> often demanding - to give us THE answers and explanations
(with full-page
> color diagrams, even) to the questions that we ask, whether it
be the
> Christians, the Muslims, the Buddhists, theTheosophists, the
Athiests,
the
> Mormons, ad nauseam. And because of this yearning, we begin
to search,
> discover, and subscribe to a particular model (or combination
thereof)
> presented by "whoever" - through some book, organization,
personality -
and
> start reinforcing the accepted construct - in whole or part -
and become
> "comfortable" with the belief that we have "finally found the
answers and
> explanations" that "makes sense."

> However, when someone comes along asking
> pointed and provocative questions regarding the belief system,
there is
> often a defensive reaction to the questioning because we have
come to
regard
> the accepted interpretations and explanations as THE ones that
address and
> answer our questions on life and the world we live in. And
questioning
> often creates visceral responses within and without our being.
No one
> wants to discover that the very foundation that their belief
system is
based
> on is built on sand, sand that starts to shift and crack the
foundation,
> causing the whole structure to weaken and come crashing down.
I suggest
> that letting it "crash down" is sometimes best for then we see
it for what
> it was and, hopefully, will reconstruct for the better the next
time
around.
>
> So, for me anyway, there are elements of what I have come to
accept in my
> belief system that I have an intuitive feeling "make sense" to
me . . .
for
> now. But I believe that when treading in metaphysical waters
that we
> mustn't let our eyes (and brains) get fogged over solely by
what someone
> says is waiting for us in the offshore and in the depths.
Explanations
> provided by sincere, believing pundits of whatever pursuasion
regarding
> karma, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, higher self,
lower self,
> auras, ad infinitum may, indeed, "ring true" but I suggest
maintaining a
> healthy skepticism all the while.

> The fact of the matter is that we just don't know for sure
about any of it
in the >metaphysical dimensions. Perhaps it is best that we put
our trust -
our faith - in that >inner voice that speaks to us when, in those
quiescent
moments, we permit a >dialogue to manifest, resulting in an
epiphanous
experience.
>
> Some thoughts from a pilgrim on our path. Respectfully, Jim
Rodak
>
> ==============================================================
>
> On "Bill Meredith" Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:12 PM,
replied to Jim
> Rodak:
>
>
> > You're right Jim. But the fact is that my Faith in my Facts
is in fact
all
> > that I have. Facts are elusive and often two or even
three-faced
rascals.
> > Used to be the only "facts" we could be certain of were death
and taxes.
> > Now I'm not so sure what happens at death except I'm pretty
sure that
> > we'll still have to pay taxes.

> > I think the discussion would be much improved if we all just
assumed
that
> > every post began and ended with "In my opinion". I would
often rather
> > discuss opinions than facts anyway. Contrary to public
opinion, a
> > literary or academic or biblical cite reference does not a
fact make.
On the
> > other hand, you know what they say about opinions. :-) gotta
go.....
head stuck in > > > a jar, Bill
>================================================================
> > > On 2/01/01, Jim Rodak wrote:
> > >
> > > Greetings ~ The more I read on these lists, the greater my
sense is
that
> > > many respondents are so convinced of their positions re:
whatever is
> > > under discussion that much of what is being presented as
facts are
none other
> > > than models of what their whole structure is purported to
be. And
where did
> > > the information that the models are based on come from?
>From the
> > > experiences and readings the originators - and from those
with whom
the
> > > originators - were exposed to. There is very little that I
have read
that is
> > > "original" with the founders of whatever belief system is
under
discussion.

> > > Much of it is nothing more that a synthesis of the
originator's
experiences and
> > > readings, regurgitated and given a spin in the form that we
see
> > > presently. Therefore, are we not expected to take it on
"faith" that
what is
> > > presented has credibility and validity - i.e., "faith" as
defined as "
the firm
> > > belief in something for which there is no proof; complete
confidence
that what
> > > is postulated is true but not based on fact?"

> > > I believe that I can safely state that every so often we
all get an
> > > intuitive "gut feeling" that some ideas and proposals have
"a ring of
> > > truth" to them.

> > >However, I also strongly believe it essential that we
always keep
> > > in mind that when we are discussing many of these subjects
that we are
> > > examining none other than another person's model of that
person
beliefs
> > > as to "how things are" and discriminate between what are
facts of the
> > > matter and what are matters that we are simply putting our
faith in.
By
> > > examining these subject areas in this context, I believe
that we rise
above the
> > > tendency to get bogged down, emotionally and
intellectually, with
matters
> > > that may, in reality, be nothing more than a chimera.

> > > Until next time! Fraternally and respectfully, Jim Rodak
> > >
>
>


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net