|
|
| [MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
May 04, 2001 05:49 AM
by dalval14
|
Friday, May 04, 2001 Re: “Belief structures” DearM: If “belief
structures” are based on observation and the accuracy of those, then they cease
being “belief” and become “history.” If it is a
“belief” -- mistrust it. If it is “history”
verify it. Theosophy
is a report on archaic HISTORY up to the present and is on-going even now. It reports on every aspect of the
evolving, living Universe both visible and invisible and therefore holds that
Nature (which Science investigates) is evidence of Nature’s cooperative
interactions. It reports
on the Laws and causes for the reincarnation of the Universe and of all lesser
Beings in and on it. The SECRET
DOCTRINE (book) demonstrates this amply.
This needs to be tested by study.
There are no valid short-cuts.
Eachone
of us needs to exchange “belief” for KNOWLEDGE. All
religions and “belief systems” of today are based on either thetrue
continuation of the theosophic effort or some deviation from it due to the
interposition of personal opinions.
None of these can be “proved” to any one else, but an approach to their
history and current study is always valuable, even if this ends up in proving
their errors. The
opposite of “belief” is always FACT and KNOWLEDGE. Endless questions
show only the suspicion and doubts of the questioner -- one who refuses to analyse
and build their own field of KNOWLEDGE. Personal
opinions lead to “belief systems.”
As such they mislead and are worthless. Best
wishes, Dallas ====================================== -----Original Message----- On the subject of subjectivity, objectivity, consensus making and
Theosophy: I wonder if I might somewhat justifiably (for the sake
of rhetorical questioning or theoretical extrapolation of a sort?) see if I
might find something worthwhile in a form of tentative separating of those who
(whoever they may be) might find themselves (however tentatively?) rather
(apparently?) primarily attracted to and emphasizing, (in their thinking and
writing), forms of consensus in various "theosophical terms", and
those who might find themselves (however tentatively?) rather (apparently?)
primarily attracted to (however that may be individually expressed) their (self
defined?) "own" reactions and value judgments during their
"theosophical studies:" in the sense that there would seem to be (as
I see it, at any rate) an interesting interplay between those two
(theoretical?) tentative poles, with occasional emphasis being paid to one or
the other (even though, of course, "realistically" I suppose we all
somehow combine forms of search and forms of consensus). I have the impression that there are those students of Theosophy
who, I suspect, rather automatically tend to shy away from those who tend to
continually present commentary/posts that would seem to be suggestive of forms
of ongoing search/enquiry rather than forms of on-going consensus making:
It's as if there were two opposing poles (with many variables in between, of
course) represented by (in broader terms expressive of poles?)
"search makers," on the one hand, and, on the other hand,
"consensus makers;" and apparently the "consensus makers"
see themselves, to whatever extent (?), as the guardians of certain
"established" or traditional theosophical belief-structures and so,
(I suspect), take a rather dim view of those who find much to
search/question/extrapolate in those same "accepted" theosophical
belief structures, as if those questioners, (like myself?), were the
representatives of an Opposing Force of some kind, in some way? At
the same time the "search makers" might/would tend to see the
"consensus makers" as missing out on a chief interest and value in
that same Theosophy: the more-specifically self-relevant self/Self study
aspects of it in active combination with the study of VARIOUS
"theosophical" writings (the "various" implying the need of
forms of self-determination/discrimination). Not that the "search makers" can escape forms of
consensus making: as I tend to see it, "thoughts" themselves
are forms of consensus making, even if they're the "result" of a
"consensus" of "one." (Incidentally, for the sakeof
consensus making, in a sense, I see myself as rather unjustifiably startinga
new paragraph here---something about keeping my paragraphs shorter for the sake
"clarity", I think/was told, I think.) Which kind of
recognition, of that kind of "individual thought-based"
consensus-making, might motivate some to realizations of the importance of
self/Self devised efforts, whatever forms those might take: so that attention
might be paid to more-specific self-relevant and self/Self related issues,
rather than forms of comparatively "external" (or
"foreign," to an extent?) Theosophy that may not be in all its
aspects particularly relevant to all individuals and their values/motives, even
though that "Theosophy" can (potentially, in many cases?) be usedas
inspirational material, in whatever kind of combined search/consensus mode one
might imagine themselves in. Something like that? |