Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00169)

Thursday, January 10, 2002

Re Fundamentalism as a common basis for thinking

Dear Friend:

You observe:

I QUOTE :

"Dear Dallas,

your fundamentalism is showing. How about putting this into your
own words? Read over the SD I 181 and then answer this: Are these
three lines of evolution what is really going on, or is it what
appears to us human beings to be what is going on?

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

DTB asks:	What's wrong with fundamentalism,

If THEOSOPHY is a report on origins and processes that are
AGE-OLD what can be more fundamental ?

Do you know of something more FUNDAMENTAL ?

Something we and others can all use ?

dtb"

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

Let me proceed:


Shall I say thanks for the compliment? Or is it irony?


I thought everything was pretty well covered. ( S D I 181-2 ,
and, added to that: I 200, 242-6, II 596, etc... )

What doubts have you? Or what exceptions?

In my mind "fundamentalism" implies reverting to a source or
basis that is stable.

Is it not something that many thinkers can accept and use in
common?

Does not science, mathematics, philosophy, metaphysics use
concept that are basic and common?

I think the concept of the ABSOLUTE seems stable enough?

Then the Causeless Cause would seem to give a general motive for
evolutionary complexity. Perhaps it might be called Universal
Law -- Karma for a whole Universe that is limitless.

Kamadeva ( The THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY . pp 170-1 ) appears to
forma good general basis for understanding the difference between
mind and desire. With ATMA is it not the polar opposite of the
Egg of Brahma, present past and future ?

The Universal Monad which fragment universally appears to give
validity to universal brotherhood.

If our Minds are able to visualize several divergent, convergent
or interactive forces, powers and realities, does that not make
of the "MIND" a transcendent, stable and unifying principle ?

Either I have much to learn or we have phraseology to adjust.
Best wishes,

Dallas
-----------------------------------------------

PS

As an example of my thinking, let me include this


I QUOTE

Thursday, January 10, 2002

Dear Ian:

Stability and continuity, to my mind include increments of growth
arising from experience, and the effort to learn what one can
during the period of manifestation.

If this is correct the LEARNER transcends the stage and the
limitations through which it passes.

If correct, then the passage and the learning adjusts elements of
the LEARNER to the REALITY and ACTUALITY of the PERFECT MODEL..

Do we not need to know who the LEARNER is?

What is the nature of the stage and process of learning?

What is the result of all this expenditure of energy 1) to the
Learner, 2, to the environment, 3) as a combined change that
results ?

Dallas


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


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

-----Original Message-----
From: G
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:34 AM
To:
Subject: Liberation -- duh ? ?



DTB	who OR what SAYS : "duh /"



<<<Suggest we look at S D I 181 where 3 lines of evolution
converge and meld in Mankind.
Dal>>>



Dear Dallas,

your fundamentalism is showing. How about putting this into your
own words? Read over the SD I 181 and then answer this: Are these
three lines of evolution what is really going on, or is it what
appears to us human beings to be what is going on?

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

DTB	What's wrong with fundamentalism, if THEOSOPHY is a report on
origins and processes that is AGE-OLD what can be more
fundamental ?

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

Jerry S.