Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00301)

Hi Larry.
I saw Brigitte's response to your post below, however I did want to say
that your characterization of the discussions between Brigitte and Adelasie
as either one extreme or the other seems on the mark to me --- both for
Brigitte *and* for Adelasie. I agree that whether HPB used drugs is
immaterial to her writings. I mean I also enjoy Janis Joplin's songs.

My first attraction to theosophy was the idea that it could be learned and
verified by astute observation of self and universe without reference to or
knowledge of "official" Theosophy or HPB. When I first came upon theosophy
a couple of years ago, I had a strong sense of resonance with the ideas and
concepts therein. Where did this harmonic sense come from? I think my own
relentless observation of self and universe had brought me to many of the
same explanations that theosophy codifies. This conclusion is pleasing to
my ego, however that fact alone is not sufficient to invalidate it. My
point is that theosophy offers a language for expressing what many have come
to consider truth. Theosophy is not the truth and should not be mistaken
for it. The potential to know truth is with us always no matter the
language we use to reveal or veil it.

As I watch Bruce and Bri ignore each other's intended points in an effort to
refocus the issue on what each has come to know as truth I am learning much
more than I might could have if they (as brilliant and pointed as each is)
were in agreement and presenting only one strongly reinforced view of truth.
(perhaps like Dallas and Adelasie tend to do).

Mauri makes as much sense as anyone, and yet he seems to be the most widely
ignored. I think perhaps because his thought processes do not lend
themselves to an opposite. At least not to an opposite that would bother
being here expressing itself. :)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that with all this to and fro, here and
there, this and that, point and counterpoint, theosophy (as a
description/explanation) can only be improved/tightened/made more precise.
In that light, I am enjoying these discussions more.

regards,
Bill


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry F Kolts" <llkingston2@juno.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Universal Pattern?


> Hi Brigitte,
>
> I've not gotten involved in your "discussions" so far because my
> historical knowledge of theosophy is not as strong as many who answer
> you. This post has a number of general themes I would like to discuss
> however.
> Brigitte: it seems indeed that the
> > spiritual
> > world is all speculation as we can have no verifiable proof of any
> > of
> > it.
> Larry: But neither is there any proof it doesn't exist. You come from a
> non spiritual background and have no direct experience in this area.
> Those who Have had such experiences can never deny them and no amount of
> intellectual arguing can persuade them otherwise. I know! End of
> discussion. I can not convince you it is so, but you can never convince
> me that it is not.
>
> Brigitte:Which is why one version of it is as good as any other, is a
> > verry accurate statement. For anyone who takes the time to open a
> > dictionary on religions will soon find out that they are not similar
> > as Theosophy claims, but are verry different.
>
> Larry: Now I don't want to nitpick with you and I understand you have
> some English language difficulty, but surely you don't mean "dictionary"
> Other that define some terms, a dictionary tell one practically nothing
> about religions. Did you mean to say "encyclopedia'
> That would be better, but even there, the articles are written to point
> up the differences, so that a student can differenciate between them.
> Those articles are short and consise and are not going to delve into all
> that is important. Those who have spent a lifetime studying religion know
> that when you get really deep, brushing away all the gloss, there really
> ARE a great many similarities. Again, you can see it as you wish, but the
> facts are their. I don't understand how you can have read Isis and SD and
> come away not seeing this. Do you only look at those books for the flaws
> you can find and never concider the wisdom contained therein. Would you
> look at a masterwork in an art museum only to take a magnifying glass to
> point out--see, a smudge-- and never stand back to view the beauty of the
> whole.
>
> I'm sorry, but you really seem to be missing something Brigitte. It pains
> me to think you can cull no good from these things.
>
> While I'm at it--
>
> You spend a lot of time with Adelasie about this drug issue. At first
> look it would seem that there are only two positions
>
> 1-HPB used drugs and so her work is nothing but a wild trip!
>
> 2-There is no evidence that she really used drugs
>
> I believe it isn't important. If she did, so what! There are those who
> believe that drugs may help ease one into a state that lends to spiritual
> experiences. Alan Watts taught this. He felt after taking several drugs
> himself that there was no difference between those experiences and those
> achiecved through meditation. I have people I know who took drugs in the
> sixties but have since turned drug free spiritual. But they claim drugs
> helped them get that way. Now, I've never taken ANY drugs. As a Mormon I
> never even smoked, drank alcohol or used coffee or tea. So I don't know
> myself and I still belive it's not good to use drugs and would never
> suggest anyone do. But those who have report these things. So to me it
> just doesn't matter if it turns out HPB did or not. It detracts not an
> iota for me to think she may have.
>
> Another matter. We have these books. Isis and SD. They exist. They are
> ponderable. How did they come about? Masters dictated them to HPB?
> Material was culled from 100 already existing books? Somthing inbetween?
> It's what in those books that really matters, not how it got there
> exactly. Did HPB go to Tibet? Did Tibetans have a colony in North India.
> Did some Indians have a collection of ancient writings? I don't care. We
> have the books and the knowledge. HPB didn't make it up out of her head.
> That fact that it exists in other forms only supports that knowledge. If
> the finders of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi Library claimed
> that an angel showed them where those caches were located make the
> findings any less real. they exist. As does Isis ans SD. Again, its the
> material that's important not the method.
>
> Now I enjoy historical delving. I think it's good that we do so. But it
> doesn't detract nor annul that which is important.
>
> Larry
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>