theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: maya/negative/positive and BIGOTRY

Aug 26, 2001 02:07 AM
by dalval14


Sunday, August 26, 2001


Dear Friends:

If I uphold a “principle” it is because I think any one can demonstrateto
himself whether such a “principle” is tenable or not.

I PRESENT WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM THEOSOPHY (HOPING THAT I HAVE NOT
DISTORTED IT).. But in case I may have, I always recommend that others go to
the texts from which I learned and check them out INDEPENDENTLY.

This is the essence of the occult system, as I understand it to be. WE HAVE
ALL INHERENTLY the same WISDOM. We need only use our minds and direct them
inward in search of THAT which is at the core of our being our INNER SELF.
There, in truth, we are all ONE.

I am NOT an “authority.” But I try to point to areas where one can do some
research and verification. Each person has to be their SOLE AUTHORITY.

There is a very good reason for this: NO ONE WILL EVER TRUST OR BELIEVE IN
ANOTHER’S OPINION without some personal research, unless he or she is a
bigot, or is extremely lazy.

By definition a bigot is one who will not think beyond the opinions they
have set up with iron rigidity -- right or wrong. There is no progress
there. And everybody sees it but themselves.

In order to make any change one has to become passionless. One has to look
at one’s Lower Mind and Personality and judge it impartially. And no one
can do that in all honesty but ONES’ SELF.

Maya - illusion and delusion is the incapacity for being impersonal,
universal in outlook, and introspective. Of course one has to be entirely
sincere and honest. If we end up “fooling ourselves” we don’t make any
progress.

Best wishes,

Dallas


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


-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 6:40 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: maya/negative/positive


MAURI: I suspect that Dallas (?) may have upheld what he saw as "a
principle in need of upholding," for whatever personal reason, possibly.
In other words, we all may evaluate, in our various ways, to some extent, in
some way, what we can about the basic motivations of those who offer their
individualistic overviews and evaluations of Theosophic (or whatever) basic
principles/attitudes: In other words, as I read your words, Gerald (and,
presumably, vice versa), I assess as much as I can, if in my interpretive
terms, aspects of what might be called your "apparent basic theosophic
directives," or something like that.
JERRY: I actually first came across ULTers here on theos-l a few years back.
Over the years, I have come to believe that that they are all
fundamentalists in the Webster sense, and all take the "Theosophical Core
Teachings" to be literally true throughout, and where comments/teachings
seem to conflict, they wiggle around a lot like Christians with the Bible
and Muslims with the Koran. They also all tend to put Blavatsky and Judge
on a pedestal that either would likely find discomforting. On the other
hand, I applaud their devotion and their zeal/enthusiasm. Now, the plain
truth of the whole matter is that we all do our own interpretation of
things, and taking things literally is itself an interpretation. Who is to
say which is right and wrong? Whatever works, is my long-held motto.
Sooner or later, are we not all concerned, in our own way, (whatever that
may amount to), in whether others around us are, on balance, (at least in
terms of how we interpret such things, for better or worse), "negative" or
"positive." So (apparently?), Dallas might have felt that, in your case,
Gerald, that "balance" tended to seem rather negative, on the whole? At
least that's the impression that I tend to get, to some extent, in as much
as I like to think that I have a rough idea about Dallas's "apparent basic
theosophic directives." What do you think?
JERRY: One person's positive is another person's negative. For Dallas and
the ULT, the idea that the Self is permanent and eternal is a positive idea.
For me it is a negative idea. And so it goes ...

CUT




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application