Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00051)

March 5, 2001


Dear Bart:

Theosophy may be considered a HISTORY of our Earth, its origin,
and human development.

If that is taken as a fact:

1. in view of the Eternity of the MONAD, and of

2. KARMA as a just, undeviating LAW for all, and of

3. the concept of universal brotherhood, mutual tolerance, and
combined efforts to learn all we can of our Universe (in much
more than a single lifetime),

then the interconnectedness, cooperation, and assistance between
"brother and sister (?) Monads" is comprehensible. Let us say it
is a nice theory ?

But the theories currently offered (in psychology, sociology,
anthropology or religions) concerning our human (and other)
development, and possible termination, are somewhat horrifying.

Further I would say they give no explanation for the concept of
VIRTUE vs. VICE. In other words the logic of the MORAL aspect of
evolutionary and communal relations appears to be avoided if not
deliberately left out as inexplicable, or too tender a section of
investigation for the rigors of science to adjust to personal
likes and dislikes of individuals or the sects they have
espoused.

If the Mahatmas / Masters are PERFECTED MEN and with a total
recall and availability of material relating to that HISTORY,
then Theosophy begins to make sense (to me, at least) (S.D. I
272-3)

Contrary to the usual "authority" trend of today They (and Their
THEOSOPHY) welcome probing and investigation, and do not
discourage that in the least.

Your three propositions will be revealed useful or not depending
on the research we make into Their theories, and based on such
independent observation as we might be able to conduct. in an
effort towards verification.

I enjoy such freedom as a contrast to obscure dogmas and cries of
BELIEVE, BELIEVE or your are Damned. Heretic. Anathema, Etc...

Why is there such an effort to keep the masses, the people, the
"faithful," fearful because of imposed ignorance?

What is wrong with having an independent mind that is perpetually
asking WHY?

If God is omnipotent., then why does he need either priests or
Church? Why did he make such differences?

And, Does he need a group of priests to tell him what to do or
not do? [ Or, to tell the parishioners when to get up and sit
down, and who to receive and who to ostracize, etc...?]

I conclude the world is made up of diversity, and if we tolerate
differences, then we can all. live together in harmony.

But of all things, "blind faith" and "blind belief" have to
somehow be reduced if not entirely done away with. Man and
Woman -- THINKERS BOTH have to be brought to that realization,
and the facts that they are IMMORTAL PILGRIMS and continually
have an unbreakable relation with the UNIVERSAL DEITY which no
priest can either cement or destroy. Universal brotherhood
unites all things, from atom, through humanity, to the STARS.

Best wishes,

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bart Lidofsky [mailto:bartl@sprynet.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 6:09 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Pseudo-Theosophy

dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> I say so. In studying widely the writings of others I have
found
> flaws of fact and of logic. I have also felt that in some
cases
> the SOURCE writings have been obscured, if not distorted. But
as
> this is an opinion I have not tried to make much of it, beyond
> issuing a kind of caution note, in my recommendations that we
go
> to sources, however tedious it might be to repeat those
> statements.

Perhaps, although I was being a little simplistic
originally (being
overly simplistic is an unavoidable problem with ALL Theosophical
writings), I can qualify my statement with my personal belief.

As far as I'm concerned, the writings of Blavatsky and
the Mahatmas are
the PRIMARY source of Theosophy. There are many secondary
sources,
however, particularly in the sciences. Secondary sources are
useful in
interpreting the primary sources. Note, for example, we are
missing half
the correspondence in the Mahatma letters. There are cases where
the
statements of the Mahatmas are demonstrably incorrect (for
example, in
their description of "potential energy"). One can come to three
conclusions:

1) Since the Mahatmas are unerringly correct, the evidence of
scientific
experiment must be incorrect.

2) The Mahatmas were wrong.

3) The Mahatmas used a definition of the TERM "potential energy"
that
originated with Sinnett, and HE got it wrong.

I tend to go with #3, and must admit that I have a
problem with people
who go with #1.

Bart Lidofsky



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/