Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00561)

Dear Alan:

Fortunately THEOSOPHY dos not rise or fall with the aspersions
and doubts and skepticism hurled by irresponsible and
non-students at H P B.

For knowledge to exist there have to be KNOWERS.

I find it very distressing to see so much time wasted on
superficial matters, when it could be spent on trying to find out
if THEOSOPHY is correct or incorrect.

When THEOSOPHY becomes a matter for study and discussion then
there will be something valuable to say. I have yet to see a
point by point critique of THEOSOPHY.

Why are criticism directed people who are no longer here to
explain or to defend themselves ? Is it safe to do that ? But
how about attacking and destroying (if possible) the PHILOSOPHY
and the DOCTRINES of Theosophy.

I think that is a fair challenge.

That is my opinion.


Dallas

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



-----Original Message-----
From: kpauljohnson@yahoo.com [mailto:kpauljohnson@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 7:35 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: Vision, Thought and Intuition

Dear Alan,

I submit that it is unwise to approach the truth or falsity of a
proposition (or the value of a line of inquiry) with one's
primary
concern being to avoid accepting any proposition/inquiry that
might
have negative *implications* for our belief system. That is a
route
to nowhere. "If HPB's statements about the Masters weren't all
true,
then her statements on other things might not be all true-- and
we
can't have that, can we? Our primary objective is to maintain
the
position that everything HPB said was true, and if we start
asking
the wrong questions, delving into the wrong sources, then we
might be
led astray into doubt." The problem for a Theosophist who takes
this
approach is that it flies in the face of everything the
Theosophical
movement is supposed to stand for. You wrote:

--- In theos-talk@y..., Alan Williams <alwilli@i...> wrote:
> Quite so, Bart. But upon rejecting them,

What does it mean to "reject them?" To reject the claim that
everything HPB said about them was true? To *accept* such an
unproven claim is in violation of the spirit of inquiry that the
TS
was supposedly founded to foster.

whoever they might be, brings
> into question everything else HBP wrote concerning the
tradition and
> preservation of the secret doctrine.

And what is wrong with those things being in question?
Everything in
the Bible, Quran, Hindu scriptures, etc. is "in question"
historically, but that doesn't destroy Christianity, Islam and
Hinduism.

So shes either telling the truth
> or a great lie.

That in itself is the BIG LIE-- that it's either all true or all
false. Anyone who investigates with an open mind will find a
mixture
of truth and fiction. "S/he's either telling the truth or a
great
lie" could also be applied to any other spiritual teacher in
history. And it would be wrong in every case.

> When the keystone is removed the arch collapses.

And is the keystone of universal theosophia the specific claims
of
one particular 19th century author? Could the keystone of
theosophia
*possibly* be the truth of one particular person's assertions?
What
arch collapses if we start to doubt that everything HPB said
about
Masters was true? Weren't HPB and Olcott pretty explicit that
such
an approach was anathema in the TS?
Cut
> of the feet, the statue collapses, doubt the masters, doubt
HPBs
> Theosopy... and so on.
>
As if to say "doubt is bad, avoid it at all costs?" What you
call
doubt, I call intellectual freedom and inquiry, and it is of the
very
essence of what the modern Theosophical movement claims to embody
and
encourage. (Hypocritically so, if most adherents take the
approach
that your words appear to encourage.) What you might call
"freedom
from doubt" I would call intellectual death.

Cheers,

Paul

>
>
> Best regards,
> Alan
>
> mailto:alwilli@i...




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/