Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00426)

--- Larry F Kolts <llkingston2@juno.com> wrote:
> The similarity is that both are historical
> institutions. That means that
> both rely on the credibility of their history. As
> Brigitte and others
> have said, both have documents which are perported
> to be of supernatural
> origin. Distroy the veracity of that history on down
> comes the whole
> house of cards.

Everything you say is true, except this one point that
Theosophy comes down if a particular viewpoint is not
the only one allowed to stand. It may be true that it
would be untenable as an object of blind faith, but it
is not true that it would be compromised as a package
of interesting ideas, some of which are very profound,
some of which can and should be questioned by
reasonable and honest men, and some of which are now
known to be untenable, even though they may have
seemed solid enough 125 years ago.

It is also worth noting that the older the ideas are,
the better they seem to stand the test of time. Those
ideas that Blavatsky (or her mahatmas) took from
Kapila are just as sound today as they were 125 years
ago. He was a very profound thinker whose ideas are
still opening up to me after more than 20 years of
study. The same could be said for the model derived
from Yogacara and Kabbalism. Ideas taken from more
recent sources such as the existence of the planet
Vulcan, etc., do not hold up well in light of current
knowledge.

Steve


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com