Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00006)

Friday, November 30, 2001

Dear “ Morten Sufilight”


Very interesting -- thanks.

If “logic” is true it develops as mathematics -- one idea fitting into all
the others.

However one can never “force” a respondent or a correspondent to agree to
adopt your (or my) “logic.”

At best you can present a chain of reasoning for their consideration, and
attach to it your observations as to difficulties that might be encountered
in understanding it. Usually if it is straightforward logic, there ought to
be no difficulties -- as in basic math.

Any response may or may not arrive. If it does, then it may or may not
reflect pure thought. At least it shows consideration and interest, which
are not strictly analyzed by “logic.” I fact I would say that the whole
moral, ethical, emotional and psychological area is very slippery when logic
is applied to it.

Example: Can we prove to another that our conviction of the existence of
metaphysical concepts, such as universality, impersonality, omnipresence,
immortality, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, etc… are fact -- even
though they are conceptual and no physically demonstrable. However, we do
have FRACTILES that demonstrate a certain community of pattern in shape and
color from infinitely small to infinitely large. We have SPACE that is
all-inclusive (unless we set limits to it). We have DURATION, which is
illimitable and undefinable time unless, we set limits to our concepts of
TIME. If there is omniscience and immortality, the to what aspect of man
shall we attribute them?

Shall se speak of ever increasing INTELLIGENCE? And, what is
CONSCIOUSNESS -- the ability to understand another’s thought or emotions by
either empathy or sympathy or perhaps it is “glocking ?”

Usually it (our attempt at such empathy/sympathy reflects another’s biases
and opinions, and compares them with our own. However, if we are able to
make comparisons, or think of them, it implies there is somewhere a
universal STANDARD -- against which (as like a “touchstone”) one may make
accurate comparisons. If dialog develops these can be gradually exposed for
mutual consideration and smoothing over the rough spots.

At least that’s been my observation.

Let’s take Theosophy -- the whole body of information. Starting with ISIS
UNVEILED or even the early letters and magazine articles ( MODERN PANARION)
and going forward to The SECRET DOCTRINE, and articles H P B wrote up to the
time of her death.

On the whole THEOSOPHY as she presented it, and as the Masters wrote in
MAHATMA LETTERS, I find this seems to be most coherent. There are some
“rough spots.” But they are to me, minor. The main doctrines are
reasonable, in my understanding.

Universal and individual SPIRIT ( or a common IDEAL).

Perfectibility as a process for all ( and ALL are implied here) that have
intelligence and consciousness.

Reincarnation and the constant exchange of “atoms” and other sub-atomic
forces -- force-fields, etc… along regular patterns of exchange.

Nature contains and regulates all things.

There is a UNIVERSAL, a causative reason for all the complexity of
existence, even within our very narrow range of perception.

Science is continually uncovering the evidence that Nature has preceded
them.

(Some call it God) but regardless of designation there is a causative and
supervisory factor that rules every aspect and instant of our living. We
participate in this as a cooperator.

There are in effect universal Laws of cooperation and interaction among all
beings on many levels.

There is in existence a panorama of living which has sensitive care for all
beings of whatever kind or grade.

Materialism has underlying it an active creative and living set of CAUSES
which need to be identified and determined.

The INVISIBLE UNIVERSE needs exploration.

Underlying all activities and choices, without exception, is the moral
effect attached to the motive for any choice or action. This is called
KARMA.

What is the actual causative nature of the existence of any human being?

Is the Physical body and its almost perfect organization evidence of a
Universal set of imperative LAWS which actually rule all the Universe? If
so, how do we as humans, with free-will participate in this?

And so on…

I find, in addition, if applied to current research and scientific thought
that they (Theosophical principles) serve to bridge gaps that are
“stoppers” for many researchers and academicians. In that case when there
is dialog, the basis or the premises or the parameters that are adopted have
to be most strictly examined.

What has your experience been?

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Morten Sufilight]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:11 AM
To:
Subject: Logic, Allegories and Love...

Hi Jerry and Peter and you others,

Logic is of course interesting. I think for the new seekers logically being
explained Theosophy is of importance, and I find that you both might agree
here.

Now the situation is, that to Theosophy - logic is not logic to use -
alone - if you want to do well, to do good, to reach cosmic consciousness.
To Theosophy - allegories are logic - or Parabrahman is logic - and logic is
simply just not a logic solution - or one could say - logic simply isn't
logic !!

But I find, that a sort of intellectual presentation of Theosophy as for
instance done by HPB in "The Key to Theosophy" - and I think also the book
by Annie Besant in "A Study in Consciousness" or others - is all right; -
and I here talk about books - and not faults in people or writers. The same
goes for the books on the Raja-Yoga of Patanjali, which some Theosophist
have made very good interpretations on - so to benefit the more new seekers.

HPB as a cofounder of Theosophy also encouraged publishing easier books for
the beginners - as far as I can remember in some letters to the Theosophical
Convent in USA. That seems at least logic and even a good idea.

So logic is important in Theosophy, - when used in books or even lectures
as intellectual presentation of Theosophy. But allegories and the use of
them is at least equally important. Because it is allegories which opens the
mind so it transcends the very limiting intellectual ways of thinking and
they transcends the limited view of time and space.

And to give the logical thinker or intellectual something to think about :
And in the above I use the term "Theosophy" with at least two views in mind.
The first: "Theosophy" is for some Theosophists - THE organisation - and
all others are not to be given any importance or only very little.
The second: And to other Theosophists - "Theosophy" is just one of several
branches presenting the ancient teaching of the Wisdom-religion =
"Theosophy", which always have been there through the ages. And Theosophy is
maybe more global than a lot of other organisations of the same kind. And
not all of the above branches - (including Theosophical ones) can be said to
be doing well, although they do something good.


Here is a spiritual allegory :

"NO ANSWER

Q: I wrote to you in great detail a month ago, enclosing a stamped envelope
for your reply. All I have received so far is a list of books. What is your
answer to my questions and request to see you soon?

A: A personal letter to this individual would in fact have been useless, as
we can see from his own words. He wants to learn, but he does not want to
accept our response - our answer is only a list of books. In his judgment,
this is not interesting enough, perhaps not enough of anything. Certainly we
have annoyed, depressed or perplexed him by not answering his questions, in
spite of the stamp which he enclosed for this service. Well, for the stamp
he got the list of books. When will he ask himself as to whose judgment is
correct in these matters, his or ours?
Whether he needs the list of books or a letter containing answers to his
questions?

But just as 'no answer is in itself an answer', so, too, an answer which the
person cannot understand or profit from is no answer either. So we do not
answer his questions. They have shown us that he needs books first.
But if he is not registering that he needs books, and in fact writes again
quite baffled and annoyed, what is the use of sending him booklists or
sending him silence?
Simply this, that there is always a chance that he will review his letter
and your booklist, and realise his real situation and what you are in fact
saying to him through the silence and booklist. If he does this, he will
have carried out the first correct self-observation exercise, and should be
able to go on from there."

Quoting a certain writer.


A view on how to counter 'dry knowledge':

Love can only be got through love.
The universe can be expressed with one word, and that is : Love.
Love comes from the heart, where it grows out and up through the head to the
benefit of all the worlds beings.
If you think Parabrahman or God is far away, then help also is far away. If
you think that Parabrahman or God is near help is also near.
Always help, never hurt. Do your best, and that will be all right, - but
then you have to do it - and not only try to do it.
All men are created equal.
My religion is love. My country is the world.
I am yours, and you are mine.
To be a coofin maker and lose your job, because the number of corpse is
going down, is really a tragedy.


Non-violence - by a certain M. L. King Jr. :

"As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline,
using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him.
Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in
your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and
desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an
endless reign of meaningless chaos."

Excerpted from "The Most Durable Power", a sermon delivered on 6 November
1956 in Montgomery, Ala. (Reprinted in Christian Century 74 [5 June 1957]:
10-11.)

"I think the first reason that we should love our enemies, and I think this
is at the very center of Jesus’ thinking, is this: that hate for hate only
intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and
you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that
goes on ad infinitum. It just never ends. Somewhere somebody must have a
little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong person is the person
who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And that is the
tragedy of hate, that it doesn’t cut it off. It only intensifies the
existence of hate and evil in the universe. Somebody must have religion
enough and morality enough to cut it off, and inject within the very
structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love."

Excerpted from "Loving Your Enemies", a sermon delivered on 17 November 1957
at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala. (full text)
"Now let me suggest first that if we are to have peace on earth, our
loyalties must become ecumenical rather that sectional. Our loyalties must
transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we
must develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone; no nation
can live alone, and as long as we try, the more we are going to have war in
this world. Now the judgment of God is upon us, and we must either learn to
live together as brothers or we are all going to perish together as fools."

Excerpted from "A Christmas Sermon on Peace", delivered on 24 December 1967
at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Ga.



This is what I offer to you all. Feel free to comment.


from
Sufilight





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