Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00017)

June 5 2002

Dear Bill:

I agree that your son is accurate and higher maths alone is for us, at
this present stage of material conditions, the totally impartial Manas
or Mind in action without any bias or personal motive.

Every one of your objections are also valid, depending on the thesis
you adopt and whether it includes, overlaps or excludes some I
advanced. I try to be impartial. I offer my thoughts and experience
on that basis. My words are chosen to present those ideas for the
purpose you have detected: to examine and discuss them in a friendly
and constructive way.

I am not trying to impress any one with what I have concluded to be
useful to me. I attribute as much as possible, to Theosophy, the
ability to endeavor to be universal, impartial, logical and accurate.
I seek to use that wisdom that I sense there and then to broaden it.

I would say in general that the value of anything is dependent on its
contents. No claims are very helpful, unless the methods and sources
employed to arrive at them are also disclosed. In my case I use ISIS
UNVEILED, The SECRET DOCTRINE, and H P B's Articles. There are good
INDEXES available so that students can recheck and cross check any
statement made. I am deeply aware of this and write accordingly.

To me the quality I find in the MAHATMA LETTERS and The SECRET
DOCTRINE are indicative of a knowledge quite superior to mine.

If Reincarnation and the immortality of the Spirit/soul are true
facts, then those coupled with Universal, impartial LAW and laws, and
the "Three fundamentals" ( S D I 14 -19), seem to me to be concepts
that run throughout this system of thought. They serve to make it
cohesive, impersonal, impartial and WISE.

As to the antiquity of the "teachings" the "Proem" of The SECRET
DOCTRINE and the statements made on S D I 272 to 300 appear to be
useful and valid if we desire to secure an idea of the continuity of
study (and its antiquity) that the Lodge of the Adepts have pursued
for far more than the last 350 years. This brief period is that
during which our modern Western Science has been paying closer
attention to nature. It has gradually fought for and won its
independence from the stifling Church.

But its work has and is still the making of discoveries in that which
IS ALREADY OPERATING THERE. I am staggered constantly by the fact
that Nature, as a whole, is sensitive, conscious, intelligent,
responsive, and has as an apparent purpose the supporting of Life in
general, and of individual Living beings in whatever situation they
may be. This is universal from the sub-atomic particles to the
uttermost limits of Space to which our newly developed instrumentation
permits us to probe.

I seek to present, as far as possible, that which I have grasped.

It is of course true that others see and grasp other aspects of the
great puzzle of life and may be students and authorities in one or
several of the many departments of nature. I have no fault to find in
that, nor do I envy or decry anything observed and honestly reported.

I am very conscious that theories and hypotheses evolved by scientists
are not necessarily statements of causes, or of original beginnings.
In fact, Science usually confines itself to its work of analysis. It
likes to keep the framework of past theories available, to see if
fresh discoveries can be fitted thereon. But that does in no way make
of those theories FACTS or TRUTHS.

But when I notice that new facts are concealed, minimized and decried,
I wonder if the effort to preserve exploded theories is not
destructive to the ultimate and true worth of progress and stultifying
to the more rapid advance of research in our Sciences and by their
teachers.

Perhaps together, we can set to work and fit these many findings
together into a mosaic of meaning that is satisfactory because it is
both impartial and universal. But if either of us allows some
prejudice to bias our open-mindedness, then our conclusions will
inevitably be to that extent blunted, blurred and have to be revised
later at the cost of far grater effort.

Each of us will gain by a freedom of exchange, and much of the
personal biases we have will to that extent be reduced. In my earlier
experience, I have been an editor of scientific material, and I try to
keep abreast of all that is now so rapidly emerging.

I believe that this kind of study and exchange is a part of the
practice of Universal Brotherhood. Facts, truths, wisdom, experience
belong to us all and no one need try to secrete or hide some facts
taken from Nature and make them solely their own. That in my way of
thinking leads to authoritarianism and inaccuracies.

Many thanks for your views so generously shared.

Best wishes,

Dal


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Meredith
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: re Gerald's "great faith and devotion"


----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "Theosophy Study List" <theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: re Gerald's "great faith and devotion"


> June 2 2002
>
>
> Dear M and Friends:
>
>
> Blind faith or belief in any persona is fatal.


What is your proof for this assertion? Doesn't this conclusion rest
ultimately on your personal faith?

> Persons usually have some biases. Rare is it to find one who is so
> honest that they disclaim any authority at all. Run away from any
one
> who says to you : TRUST ME.

How do you square this notion with the idea of trusting and accepting
on
faith the claims of masters (who are after all only slightly more
advanced
persons.) From what I have read of their writings I sense that they
too
still display some biases and certainly they don't disclaim any
authority.
They, too, have their chiefs.

>
> Religious bodies that demand faith and blind belief and trust --
what
> are they really saying? They state they will rule your lives, keep
> you ignorant and unhappy and without any trace of reasonable return
> for your "faith." They cannot demonstrate or prove any of the
> so-called rewards that they speak of and advertise.


Seriously Dallas, what can theosophy demonstrate or prove of the
so-called
future that it speaks of and advertises?


Who has seen
> Paradise? who has been to any hell worse than some we find on
earth?
> Who has seen the JUSTICE OF GOD or stood face to face with HIM?
>


Who has seen devechan? who has been to the thresh- hold of a new
manvantura? Who has seen the JUSTICE OF KARMA or stood face to face
with
HIMSELF?


> And why not -- if HE is everywhere, then it is HIM (in you and me)
who
> face HIM in every other place I, or we, may look.
>
> Putting one's trust in a philosophy, or a science, or logic, or
maths,
> that one (or any one) has proved repeatedly to be fair and
> impartial -- is quite another matter.

My eldest son, who is a budding mechanical engineer, after intense
studies
in philosophy and science and logic and the higher maths, assures me
that
only the higher maths can lay claim to impartiality. I concur with
his
assessment. In my mind what is "fair" is such a relative question as
to be
unworthy of utterance in the presence of Gods or Masters. But that is
just
my belief.


>
> In theosophy we work together to find the truth of things. We
believe
> NOTHING.

Dallas, we believe theosophy is useful and gives us this day our
daily
bread. Some of us recognize that it is but a working model of
existence.
Others take it quite literally. But we all believe what we believe.
To
redefine our beliefs as knowledge and then to elevate such knowledge
to the
level of wisdom is to risk being very foolish in the end.



We ask for demonstrations and proofs. We don't seek for
> people to agree with us, but rather for them to follow the lines of
> common sense and learn to seek for the causes and the reasons for
> things as they are now found -- starting with the basic questions:
> Who am I? What am here to do? where can I go ?
>
> Also we try to be absolutely impersonal in what we offer.
>
> Each student has to do his own seeking and proving. It takes a
> God-Man to do a Man's job.


Maybe there is no thing to seek and no thing to prove. The more we
seek to
prove that our particular model is in fact not a model, but the truth
after
all, the more entangled in manas we must become. But, of course, I
have no
proof for such a claim. Only the peace that comes from a personally
satisfying world-view.

Bill