Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00262)

Nov 12 2002

Dear Mi:

Let us together look at the ideas that Theosophy presents . Is it
History -- a history of the evolution of our Universe and particularly
of our Earth and of mankind? Are the Teachings so strange as not to
be found in the traces we have of ancient theogonies? What kind of
moral or ethical values are assigned to the results of any action
performed by free-willed man?

If you think that "Theosophy" affects things then I would say you err.
It is the human mind that considers options and then chooses; This is
what makes differences apparent. If the choices are based on partial
knowledge the results will be equally imperfect. Should the choices
we can make be based on an accurate knowledge of Universal an
impersonal LAWS (WISDOM) then the result ought to be harmony and
concord in all the various planes of being.

Either the Universe runs under trustworthy laws or it does not. There
is no unbalanced position, or have you discovered one? Or is it that
we have not been able to make accurate observations of the operations
of Karma -- and therefore doubt its immutability and sensitivity of
response?

Is it because we have not thought of, or discovered any "purpose" to
life and living ?

Theosophy is very simply a record of the facts and operations of
Nature. It is History. As history it covers all fields of operation
, past, present and so on into the future. Do we distrust its
accuracy? do we think that to morrow we will not awaken? Do we
distrust the Laws that Science has discovered in all departments of
nature ? Is the existence of LAW suspect ?

Its like the laws of nature which Science has observed in operation
( physics, chemistry, electronics, mathematics, astronomy, etc... and
recorded the repetition of events in such a way that one can predict
the recurrence of certain events and processes. Then those are called
"Laws," and used with the certainty that they are "exact."

When Scientists try to extrapolate back to probable developments, they
often run afoul of the actual events because they are not able to
perceive the CAUSES of the phenomena which they observe. I have found
that the views offered by Theosophy of past events and development,
make more logical sense than the attempts at reconstruction offered by
various sciences (archaeology, paleontology, geology, the study of
Theogonies, orientalism, psychology, philosophy, etc...)

The great gap is this inability to see the causes of physical
phenomena.

If Science is examination of events, then Philosophy is the science of
studying the inter-relation of such phenomena to their causes.

Religion is that which attempts to depict ( I mean ancient religion,
not the rites, rules, ceremonies, and trappings of ritualism, and all
the so-called sacred and holy regulations that Priests impose and
support to their own private profit.

True Religion ought to be the history of the development of evolution
explaining how the Universe evolves after its vast rest into the
complexity we now have. Sacred is derived from sacrifice --
indicating that choices and actions so made are for the general (and
not the selfish) good.

This means that Religion is the performance of "sacred actions." How
can these be performed with no perfect knowledge of the whole
Universe, and it many laws? How can these be done unless the concept
of the immortality of all beings at their core is considered? How can
the interaction of beings not be considered as a vast pattern which
harmoniously and exactly sets the parameters of all relationships past
present and future? If Religion is the performance of "sacred
actions," then our whole living ought to be a sacrament. Our choices
ought to be based on wholeness and not on analysis and argument. Why
is that so difficult? why do we insist on spending time over ephemera
and trivia ?

The main factors that theosophy emphasizes are :

1.	An eternal and immutable base, named in various ways (such as the
ABSOLUTE, SPIRIT, WISDOM, "GOD," DEITY, UNIVERSAL MIND, "CREATION
OF THE UNIVERSE and MANKIND," etc...) but containing in those words
the idea of FUNDAMENTAL and ETERNAL LAWS. These are impartial and are
the regulations that all life, including human life, is affected and
ruled by. [ How is it logically possible to conceive of a Universe
where laws are chaotically and whimsically applied, where one is able
to avoid or escape from the results of anything one does with or to
others? In other words a Universe and Earth where moral laws are
variable, and untrustworthy? ]

2.	Consciousness and intelligence ( conveying the idea that the
Spiritual Laws and evolutionary push are transmitted through the area
of impression, emotion, desire, passion, psychism, and the activity of
all interactive life -- into rules and laws of brotherhood,
compassion, charity and a strict respect for the rights and privileges
of all living beings ) -- this impression, as force and energy, is
conveyed to

3.	Matter, substance, and the various forms we see and feel around us,
which seem to real that we assume the whole Universe is nothing but
MATTER.

It (Theosophy) is not an "ism" nor is it in existence to demand a
regular increment of numbers who not understanding it join one or
other of the various Theosophical bodies, thinking, perhaps, that such
joining is the better part of discretion. Then they are disappointed
when they fin that applied Theosophy is strenuous thought about
consequences, and the laws of justice and equity in daily life.

Well, perhaps this may be of some help.

Best wishes,

Dallas


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



-----Original Message-----
From: M
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:58 PM
To:
Subject: Does Theosophy teach values? How is it different from
Religions ?

Surely we all have experienced, in whatever form,
studies/cultivations of what might be seen as "our own
basic sense of values," as by way of such as intuitive
sense of relevance, by which we "cope,'
generally/particularly, (and in addition to those
modelized about by Theosophists in terms of
"right/wrong"), and by which people in general, as well
as "students of Theosophy," might benefit from,
especially in areas (such as Theosophy) where there
might be various tendencies/temptations to, (in effect?),
get ahead of oneself, in some way, to some extent . . . (as
in my case, eg, as Leon, Dallas, etc., might be eager to
point out?) . . .

That is, while such studies/cultivations might often (or
occasionally?) be recognized (or paid some lip service
to?) in theory, (as per, say, in terms of "Theosophic
relevance"), I wonder how often and how "more
specifically" the results of such concerns might be, or
are, applied in practice.


CUT