RE: ULT/"FIRM RESULTS"/interpretations
Sep 02, 2001 04:51 PM
Dear “speculative” Mauri:
What is your basis for your speculations? Or have you none?
As far as I am concerned, I see to many phenomena that are analogous and
repetitive -- so I concluded long ago with our SCIENCE (Mathematics,
Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering, etc.. etc.. ) that Nature runs
under LAWS. I’m also pretty convinced that we are free to dispute others’
views and renditions of their observations. But then, what stability do we
have to fall back on?
We have all of us a dualistic mind approach. In mankind, the evolving
“animal intelligence” is raising itself to merge with the “descendingGod
intelligence.” The “God-like” Intelligence sacrifices its universal vision
for the sake of assisting the “persona animal intelligence” of the
transitory personal “man” to raise itself.
You speculate a lot but I don’t see any order to those. Have you
established any ? Or is my perception at fault.?
You may not agree or like the simile, or my question.
But that is what I have acquired from a careful study of the Theosophical
Today I have sent out a small article on WHAT IS THEOSOPHY ? It covers
pretty well the general definitions.
It does not try to straight-jacket anything, but does declare there is a
system and a scheme that is ages old and which is in effect a description of
the laws and their operation in nature.
It is not speculative but takes speculation into account. Speculation is
the right of the free mind. But does it ever get beyond the cloud of doubt ?
Does it get to the stage where ignorance is separated from actual KNOWLEDGE
? Is there anything to share?
If you dispute the fact of laws supporting all life, then there is little
remaining to debate.
If you wish to discuss your observation of laws in operation as a scientist
would, then we have a lot to offer for mutual comparison.
From: m [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 7:33 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: ULT/"FIRM RESULTS"/interpretations
<<<DALLAS: But to skip around to what are called neo--theosophy without a
foundation knowledge of what
H.P.Blavatsky taught gives you no FIRM RESULTS.
Them to claim that the older students who have done that work are
“fundamentalists” is tantamount to saying that you have no time to waste on
such things. In such a case, taking others’
”say-so” as “true” the problem amplifies rather than diminishes.
Those who claim that there are other interpretations say it correctly.
There are. But having said that, what effort is made towards verification?
Unless the checking out is done continuously, errors are not erased, but
rather, with the passage of time, they are enhanced.>>>>
MAURI: Dallas, it's as if somehow by your overall tone and emphasis you
make the likes of "FIRM RESULTS AND VERIFICATION" almost sound as if they
have, or ought to have, more than a dualistic/interpretive/relative
reality. My speculations based on what I've read about Theosophical
subjects so far have tended to lead me to think that ""FIRM RESULTS AND
VERIFICATIONS" in "Theosophical terms," while having a sense in which they
may be seen to have a relative relavance/value, ought to be viewed at the
same time in their "larger Theosophical perspective" by taking into account
"esoteric aspects" at least in terms of their theoretical/possible
relatedness (even though that relatedness generally seems to appear as not
being more-specifically conceivable by way of the dualistic terms of regular
So while there may be value in dualistic verifications of various kinds,
surely the more specific "Theosophical verifications" might tend to result,
instead, from less dualistic insights (in as much as if transcendence of
dualism is a primary objective of applied Theosophy?)?
I think we all follow dualistic notions and verifications in our own ways
but, in Theosophical terms, seems to me that some of us might tend to take
some verifications with a grain of salt (as the tired old saying goes).
Surely as Theosophists we might do well to verify on the one hand (in the
usual ways) while keeping in mind a "larger perspective" on the other hand,
no matter how "inconceivable" that esoteric "larger perspective" may be
judged to be?
But then if you already knew all that, Dallas, I wonder what you might
really trying to tell us with your "foundation knowledge," "firm results,"
"verification," etc.? Is it that you tend to believe, or DO believe, that
certain kinds of study of certain kinds of Theosophical "original text"
subjects is more condusive toward realizing esoteric aspects? Is that a
Path that seems to work for you?
But even if that were your perfect Path, I feel that I would still need to
find mine: which for me is intimately connected with an ongoing daily
experience that isn't limited by words/concepts such as "Theosophy," or
"original texts," or "foundation knowledge," or whatever. "Original-text
Theosophy" and this twiddle twaddling over the net for me is more like an
interesting "hobby-on-the-side" as compared to my "essential Theosophy"
which "takes into account" my "ongoing daily exprience" in "fuller-spectrum"
terms. Not that that's not the case in your case.
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: email@example.com
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]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application