|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
May 04, 2001 05:49 AM
Friday, May 04, 2001
Re: “Belief structures”
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.
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?