Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00103)

Adelasie:

Thanks for your comments. Sorry to say, I remain
stubornlu convinced that there is nothing guilty about
the truth. I remain convinced furthermore that it is
those who imply that there is something guilty about
the truth and who insist it be covered up or that
attention be distracted from it who are skeptical and
"adverse" and attacking.

If it is true that "there is no religion higher than
the truth," then it must also be true that there is no
religion lower than baloney. Anything less than
fearless honesty is unworthy of a public forum. I
shall continue my quest for the truth regardless of
where that quest might lead. Those who prefer
distractions, diversions, disingenuous arguments, and
a lot of irrelevant fustian are welcome to their
choice. It is regrettably a choice which I can
neither share nor understand.

Steve

--- adelasie <adelasie@surfari.net> wrote:
> Dear Dallas,
> 
> Your comments are so kind and I thank you. As far as
> I can tell, we 
> are each one doing our best to study, comprehend,
> and manifest 
> the ancient wisdom teachings as revealed in this
> cycle by HPB and 
> her co-workers. Those who choose to view her and her
> writings with 
> skepticism are simply exercising their right to
> choose how they 
> approach this material. Someone posted recently that
> the correct 
> approach to theosophical study is to read and then
> to meditate. I 
> would add that putting these teachings to practice
> in our daily lives 
> is also essential. If we take the statement,
> "Occultism is altruism," 
> seriously, we have to decide how to express our
> thoughts in ways 
> that do not attack others or attempt to make them
> wrong. A key to 
> how to do this is the Golden Rule. Do unto
> others...But of course 
> you know this.
> 
> I would say, however, that defending someone who is
> unjustly 
> attacked is completely within the realm of the above
> maxim. I 
> would definitely want to be defended if so attacked.
> In the case of 
> HPB, I read the running "historical" debates about
> her validity with 
> interest, since they give me a view into the world
> of theosophists of 
> which I was previously ignorant. It seems there are
> those who limit 
> their exposure to the intellectual approach, and who
> therefore miss 
> the true significance of the life and work of this
> remarkable woman. 
> As many times stated, theosophy cannot be understood
> with the 
> mind alone. But how can I demand that others accept
> this 
> statement? They have to find this out for
> themselves, and of 
> course they will, in time. What bothers me now is
> that such wilfull 
> avoidance of the essential nature of the teaching is
> like rocks in the 
> stream. It causes turbulence, and takes attention
> away from the 
> real purpose of the material. Humanity is in a very
> difficult cycle 
> right now, and our future hangs in the balance. If
> we continue to try 
> to understand with our intellect alone we simply
> give power to the 
> materialisic age which is coming to a close,
> retarding evolutionary 
> progress. If we learn to embrace the mind/heart
> approach to living, 
> we add energy to the progress of our evolution, and
> help to bring 
> the coming cycle closer. But of course, the latter
> demands 
> renunciation of the lower ego and its clamoring
> desires, and most 
> are just not ready to take that step. I wonder
> sometimes about 
> people who say they are theosophists, but who seem
> quite able to 
> ignore the first principle of theosophy, the unity
> of all life. When we 
> attack others, we are subscribing to separateness,
> the opposite of 
> unity. And our words are powerful. We actually
> augment the forces 
> of negativity, which manifest in such things as war
> and natural 
> disasters, by choosing to concentrate on differences
> instead of 
> similarities. However, obvious as this seems to me,
> it is evidently 
> not obvious to some. But I do find it surprising
> that theosophists 
> would choose to manifest this type of behavior,
> since if anyone 
> should be able to focus their attention on unity
> instead of 
> separateness, it seems theosophists would be the
> ones. 
> 
> Thank you for the quotes from WQJ. He so often puts
> things just 
> exactly the way I can grasp them. And may I say, you
> have shown 
> over the few years I have been reading your posts, a
> very fine 
> blending of mind and heart. I very much appreciate
> your excellent 
> and comprehensive scholarship, and I have seen many
> times when 
> you could have chosen a personal attack, but have
> refrained and 
> concentrated instead on the underlying principle.
> Each time you do 
> this it helps others like me to try to do so as
> well. It does sound as 
> if your computer is "overshadowed," by some helping
> intelligences. 
> I think sometimes mine is too, since it makes me be
> pretty careful 
> somehow to say only what I am sure I mean. 
> 
> Best Wishes to you always, and keep up the wonderful
> good work 
> you do, as if I needed to say that...
> 
> Adelasie
> 
> On 5 Jan 02, at 17:25, dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > Saturday, January 05, 2002
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Adelasie:
> > 
> > I think that is well said -- they don't read.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/