Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00088)

Sunday, May 13, 2001

Re: Nonetheless this makes me want to pose a question to you
all: Is
anyone in doubt about the provenance or veracity of this
teaching?
[ about THEOSOPHY] ?


Dallas offers:

So far as my over 60 years of study is concerned, I am quite sure
that the philosophy of Theosophy is the latest expression of the
ancient and immemorial SANATANA DHARMA.

Every ancient religion or communal philosophy has originated from
it and its principles and basis is made clear at almost every
turn in Theosophical literature (the originals). Further, every
Science has been investigated and detailed in earlier centuries,
and we are only re-discovering the information known in the past.

The paradoxes of the SPIRITUAL, as UNIVERSAL and IMMORTAL, are
always placed in juxtaposition with the impermanency and
self-centered obtuseness of the short-lived personal point of
view.

Universal SPACE, LAW and EVOLUTION makes more sense that
happenstance, luck and chance. The evidence of law, be it in the
continually expansive views we obtain of the spatial "heavens,"
or in the ever-diminishing field of the microscope and the
sub-atomic, shows the perceptive, that LAW underlies ALL. And
the entire range of phenomena, (great or small, simple or
intricate) and that whatever guides and rules NATURE (the
Universe), is supremely sensitive and perceptive. Every living
being of whatever simplicity or complexity is deemed to have
purpose and Nature protects and shields this in her all
encompassing sensitivity.

Science in its search for meaning in Nature's departments, shows
us that laws rule every aspect of existing facts, forms and their
intricate inter-relationships. Science constantly uncovers and
verifies that which the MASTER-HAND of LIVING NATURE instituted
millions and billions of years ago.

If one were to adopt any of the materialistic arguments
(speculative, hypothetical and theoretical -- which change every
15 years or so) concerning evolution, the one thing that is
never answered satisfactorily is: " How does motion produce
consciousness, awareness, perception, logic, desire, egotism,
etc... What causes form and what are the Laws that guide life?"

Nothing we have currently serves to integrate the metaphysics of
the Universe (visible and invisible) with a person's daily life.
Theosophy points to these solutions and uses as proof evidence
from history and observation currently available and verifiable.

The Ethics of Theosophy alone deserve the most careful and
analytical search.

Theosophy also presents us with a reasonable GOAL: that is
PERFECTION. It also declares that the World and our Universe
exists solely for the "Soul's (MIND'S) experience. That is the
individual intelligence and consciousness of any and every
creature is already at ONE with the CONSCIOUSNESS and sensitivity
of the whole Universe.

If the Universe is granted eternity as to its existence,
regularity as to its performances, an purpose as to its
objectives, then Man's existence and position (as an indissoluble
part of that Universe) is also qualified with eternity,
regularity and perfectibility -- as potential.

Theosophy has no two answers for any question.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: alwilli [mailto:alwilli@iafrica.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 8:09 AM
To: Blavatsky Archives
Subject: Re: Theos-World WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? by
Boris de Zirkoff

Hello Mr Caldwell,
Friday, May 11, 2001, you wrote:
> WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? THE PUZZLE OF "THE
THEOSOPHICAL
> GLOSSARY." by Boris de Zirkoff
>....informative article snipped to save bandwidth.........

Thankyou for the heads-up that not all one reads pertaining to
Theosopy, especially that with HPB's name attached, is to be
taken
at face value. The naive and unwary are always in danger of
falling
into the pits dug by their own enthusiasm, their wish to believe.

And I would fall into that class at the moment, because until now
I
would have honestly placed my faith in anything issuing from an
established Theo printing house and even moreso in anything
published
under HPB's name.

However, it's still a matter of concern that questionable
material is
issued in this way. No doubt there are reasons. But as a newcomer
to Theosophy, having read Isis Unveiled, browsed the Mahatma
letters,
read through your account of HPB's life (the anecodtal compendium
of
references by her fellow workers); having read the abridged
version of
SD (though far too quickly with far too little pondering) to get
a
gist and feel, I am at a stage when fine discrimination is at a
minimum because Im still struggling with the discrimination of
the
larger parts. And as far as I'm aware, there has been no credible
debunking of any of that. Therefore matters such as the glossary
are
but quibbles (though important in their way, because wrong
definitions
could lead to wrong consequences in someone's thinking).

Nonetheless this makes me want to pose a question to you all: Is
anyone in doubt about the provenance or veracity of this
teaching?
Obviously not, otherwise you'd have hived off to seek elswhere.

But there are always some who might hang around and sow little
seeds
of doubt hoping they might grow large in another's mind, so
justifying
their own doubts.

I'm the last mortal to deny I myself have ever been guilty of
this
often unconcious negativism. However the life of Religion and
Science
- and Philosophy, the mother of them all - are rife with
well-researched examples (IU) of just this pernicious
"friendliness".
And I think your account of HPB's life shows well-known cases of
vicious jealously and reactivism which led people to lie, slander
and
twist the truth in an attempt to neutralise someone who, though
she
posed no physical threat, her ideas and thoughts struck such
damaging
iconoclistic blows at the very foundations of civilization (its
acknowledged "treasure" of establishment thought and idea). To do
this
they often had to be very "picky" and seize on the minutest
detail.

But it appears that as many as culumniated her were matched by
supporters who expended equal effort in research and
dissemination to
quash the falsities.

All this then diverted, and now diverts, efforts to apperceive,
apprehend and adhere to HPB's fundamental message. I understand
that
it is important to protect the standing of Theosophy and its
founders
so that the sly dogs of materialism cannot fill the pitcher of
doubt
and mistrust "drop by drop". So doubts must immediately be
dispelled.
It is also possible that I, and newcomers like me (may I speak
for us
all), are at a vulnerable stage; when misunderstanding, doubt and
confusion have their best chance, so we appreciate any pointers
to the
possible minefields ahead.

But the bottom line is and always (in my mind) will be this:
Truth has a
certain sweet taste. Trickery and ledgerdemain have a smug but
unbelievable taste. False beliefs and religions, twisted
philosophies
and debased ideals and their like have an uncomfortable, unhappy,
repellent taste.

Nothing I have tasted yet, tastes so fine, so truly sweet, as HPB
has
written (any non- mis- or other not-understandings
notwithstanding).

Those who would feed on the food should do so, those who who
would
feed on the maggots, attracted in their cycle by the richness of
the
food, will do so, whatever you or I could do to avoid it.



--
Best regards,
Alan
mailto:alwilli@iafrica.com