Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00267)

Monday, August 27, 2001

Dear Friends:

Nothing like being the subject of interpretation !

Hello! May I speak for my view? I don’t feel “dogmatic” in any way.

In fact, is not the seeking individually for the “Truth” the method that
Theosophy recommends? How will we ever recognize it (TRUTH) unless we find
it for ourselves? It cannot be taught, and no “authority” can make ittrue
or force it into us. At best we may open windows or doors as examples of
things that helped us. If they serve to assist others, then we have done
our best.

We all know something of what Theosophy teaches, and of course, we can
repeat it (or refuse to repeat it) with such explanations as can also be
provided to show a continuity.

To me, what Theosophy teaches is like describing a process going on in front
of us all.

Should we not use the best technical description we can find. And try to
keep it simple, but point to those factors that seem to be based on
fundamentals all know. Theosophy is commonsense. We all know it.

Its like saying if you chill water it turns to ice at a certain temperature
if pure; but if there are impurities in the water, that temperature may
vary, Add a lot of heat and both ice and water turn to vapor, again the
temperature at which water boils, may vary if there are impurities (such as
salt). However, in the process of transformation, (either into ice or into
steam) the “impurities” are separated from the water, which, by either of
these processes is a now a purified substance. It is only this PURIFIED
SUBSTANCE that can pass from one state into the other. The impurities
remain on one side or other of the barrier.

[This sounds like an analogy for the condition of the after-death states,.]

However, the turns of fancy that seem to attract all our minds at various
times, are also describable as being out of relation with the transformation
of the pure substance. What shall we do with them?

As far as I can see, they ought to be analyzed individually to discover
their worth. In other words how do the ideas we think describe best the
function of the laws of Nature actually work out if used and extrapolated?
Take Buddhism as one of the closes of parallels to Theosophy (and also
remember that the Mahatmas in Their letters show veneration for the Buddha
as their “Patron) -- Buddhism has by now spit into various sects, each
adopting a particular view-point. Taken as a whole they are “ Buddhism.”
Taken as parts of a whole, they lack the others to complete and complement
them. Col. Olcott dis splendid work trying to unify them ON FUNDAMENTALS
that they all recognized and used.

But then, is not the first order of business is to find out if THOUGHT, like
THEOSOPHY has a pure condition, and then observe those processes, setting
aside the effect that “impurities” (such as our notions, and fancies, and
desires and passions) may have on the purity of logic and straight thinking?

One may keep on saying, ”learn what THEOSOPHY teaches,” and then discuss if
the modes, concepts and variations that you and I are sensing, have some
relation to it. If you are sympathetic to Theosophy, but do not know it
well, you also are unable to use it to the fullest extent of its capacities.
If one is also sympathetic to another “religion,” then is that well and
fully grasped at the root-fundamentals of the Teachers’ expressions ?

For example a Buddhist, a Vedantin, a Taoist, a Shinto, a Christian, a
Hindu, a modern psychologist, an Islamic devotee, a Kabalist, a Sufi, a
Druze, etc… would have overlays relative to the traditions of their faiths.
If Theosophy is to be compared with them, then as far as I can see the only
way is to go back to the original source of each of them, and see if they
resemble each other at the root -- then it becomes easier to discover if
today, if they have been altered.

I have tried to lay out the bare basis of Theosophical thought.

Universality, immortality, impersonality, lawfulness to the nth degree,
progressive as a system that leads everything and everyone to a common Goal,
which could be (generally) described as: ALL-KNOWING-NESS, or a WISDOM that
is both common and universal. But if any of these is denied or modified,
then in all fairness to those concepts, they ought to be rigorously examined
and determined if they can be carried out in effect to some ultimate result.
Every mind that is honest and sincere can do this without prejudice.

Speculation without facts, and discussion without precision leads only to
the waste of time, as I see it. Nothing useful is achieved. Only the
divergence of views is seen and no reconciliation is apparent.

Take another method. Select any (or choose several together) of the
fundamental propositions of Theosophy, and set to rigorously disprove it (or
them) if you can. Find out if there exists a valid substitute. Ask probing
questions to see if there are any inherent faults.

If one adopts a system as being correct, then regardless of mistranslations,
and personal views, there has still to be a rigorous logic implicit in it.
What is that ?

Best wishes,

Dal

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




-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 6:36 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Interpretation


<<<<< However, my less-specific, "conversational," good-will response to
that same statement by Dallas might run along the lines of:
Ok, except I'd watch out for various interpretations of principles, myself!
...
MAURI: Again: Dallas is talking as if there's no interpretation involved
when checking texts! >>>
Dallas and I went around the barn on this one some time ago. According to
Richard Taylor (who was in ULT), ULT folks are incapable of assuming that
many interpretations of the Theosophical core teachings are possible. Based
on many conversations with Dallas, Leon, and other ULT folks, I agree with
Rich. I have met many Christian fundamentalists who are just like this, so
it (ie fundamentalism) is apparently a mind-set that can be found in any
religion (and to them Theosophy is indeed a religion). So, arguing over
interpretation is pretty much a waste of time - after all, to accept the
possibility of many interpretations has to allow for "my" interpretation and
"your" interpretation which leads down the slippery slope toward "I may be
wrong" which, of course, can't be so (but this is so unconscious that I am
sure that are unaware of it).
Jerry S.

---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net


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