Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00239)

In a message dated 10/28/02 10:40:46 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<HPB never claimed any authority, 
>and asked each student to think about and judge the 
>validity of teachings for themselves. >>
>
>I'm wondering about what kind of "for themselves" 
>Theosophists in general might cultivate and regard as 
>relevant, as per their notions about reasonableness, 
>wisdom, etc . . . I wonder if there might be a kind of "for 
>themselves" that would toe (ULT's, say?) generally 
>accepted (formal, semi-formal, or informal . ..) guidelines 
>in terms of "reasonableness" (say?) re such as "study 
>methods" or "approach to Theosophy" . . .
>
>I ask because my "speculative approach" (by which I 
>mean "thinking for myself" as much as I can) seems to 
>have met a rather deadly silence and/or elicited various 
>forms of disapproval from Theosophists on these lists. 
>Dallas, for example, wrote: <<No more what-ifs.>>
>I tend to take that kind of comment to basically say that 
>"thinking for oneself" ought to be limited to . . . what? . . . 
>"generally accecpted guidelines in the form of generally 
>accepted interpretations of Theosophics" . . . ? Or? That 
>is, is it that Theosophy ought not to be considered as being 
>open to interpretation "beyond a certain point," say . . . 
>And one might wonder if that might be a "limit point" (or 
>limiting point?) that might be generally regarded as one 
>that "should be" clear enough and reasonable enough to all 
>(or most?) of those who have taken an interest in 
>Theosophy . . . 
>
>Of course, in my case, I may have crossed some line, as by 
>being too tangential, unclear, crazy, over-speculative, and 
>whatever. Sorry about that, Dallas, etc. But, apparently, 
>I'm not the only student of Theosophy who has a lifelong 
>interest in theosophics (and thereby has developed an 
>interest in Theosophy). 
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri

Thinking for oneself about the validity of theosophical teachings has nothing 
to do with interpretation, nor is there anything speculative about theosophy. 


Its metaphysical teachings are a complete system, sui generis in itself, that 
either is or is not the way the universe must (by dependence on fundamental 
principles that are unassailable) have involved and evolved. 

In no way does this theory -- starting from the zero-point "spinergy" 
(absolute abstract motion), and progressing logically and mathematically 
according to fundamental laws of "electricity," cycles, and periodicity to 
its present state -- contradict any of the theories of reductive or empirical 
science (that are based solely on the final objective/physical phase of 
universal Cosmogenesis). In fact, beginning with relativity and quantum 
physics and extending to their final synthesis in Superstring/M-brane 
mathematics, theosophy has completely anticipated and presaged all these 
theories. 

Therefore, after careful thinking about their inherent reasonableness, one 
can either accept the theosophical metaphysical concepts as they are 
presented, or come up with another theory that is equally consistent based on 
those same principles or propositions. There is no other choice -- except 
skeptical denial based on false beliefs, ignorance or thoughtlessness. 

Since theosophy, through its metaphysical processes, has demonstrated the 
inherent unity of all beings in the universe, all further conclusions 
relating to the laws of karma, the eternality of consciousness and 
temporality of matter, along with the inherent justice that prevails with 
respect to the willful actions of conscious human beings that alter the 
harmony of universal causation, follows by logical deduction. To speculate 
at this level of understanding, is an exercise in futility that leads us 
nowhere (either from a subjective or objective point of view) toward a better 
understanding of the true nature of reality. 

Thinking for oneself, therefore, must follow logical progressions of cause 
and effect that lead to concrete conclusions and firm convictions. Otherwise 
one gets lost in a maelstrom of inconclusiveness and confusion.

Absolutely,
LHM