Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00056)

What does "time appropriate" mean? What does the passage of "time" have to 
do with the three fundamental principles of theosophy, or with its 
philosophical, scientific and religious ideas linked to involution and 
evolution, Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis and other metaphysical truths 
that these "propositions" are the foundation of? 

If you have evidence of the invalidity of the ancient occult and esoteric 
teachings that were presented to us, in modern understandable language, by 
HPB in 1888 -- (much of which, starting with the ideas of Einstein and 
others, is beginning now to be verified at the cutting edges of scientific 
philosophy and philosophical science) -- I'm sure everyone here would be more 
than happy to hear about them and offer their considered attention and 
intelligent comments. Negative talk about these ideas and vague hubristic 
implications of hidden knowledge, without offering alternative principles 
coupled with logical argument related to their progressive developments and 
conclusions, is nothing more than empty whistling in the wind. And, to say 
that HPB would redesign her teachings if she were alive today is an 
opinionated negative remark, and a perfect example of projection, and why 
this forum ends up with bickering that has nothing to do with theosophy or 
rational thinking. 

The "bickering" which you speak of and seem to abhor (and also, apparently, 
instigate) which I might agree is sometimes a bit foolish -- (although there 
appear to be some here who are attempting to disrupt logical theosophical 
thought for various ulterior reasons and need to be "called out") -- is also 
what keeps this forum dynamic, and not a victim of imposed ideas and bland, 
homogenized thinking that is evident on other forums domineered by self 
designated "gurus" and their sycophants. What's wrong with strong defense 
against bigotry and prejudice, or countering false implications about 
theosophy whenever those concepts creep into these discussions? ... That 
should be focussed on theosophical ideas and their practical applications, 
and not on personalities, negative opinions about this, that, them, and other 
unrelated things, or historical and political side issues. (Although, I, for 
one, think that there are not enough here who are resistant to being 
brainwashed, and aren't too polite to call out a disrupter or unfounded 
confounder when they see one.) 

LHM 


In a message dated 12/28/02 10:18:01 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi. Perhaps the kind of very small talk, political arguing, arguing in
>general, nitpicking, looking back at little inconsequential details from the
>past and analyzing them etc. is a result of the condition of the theosophy
>movement at the present time. I have not seen anything quite like the
>bickering on theosophy lists on any other lists I have been on that are of
>about this size. Generally speaking, though not always, people can get
>along and stay pretty focused. I am not saying that this is necessarily true,
>but perhaps theosophy, as it was originally presented, is no longer
>time-appropriate. Things have moved very fast in the last hundred plus
>years. This is worthy of enquiry. I believe if Madame Blavatsky were alive,
>she would redesign her whole teaching.
>
>There is not enough real enquiry on here, though I have seen some. In any
>case, learning needs to be set up so that it is a constant discovery. In
>this way there is joy and not authority and dullness. With joyful learning,
>there is the rapture of a constant opening and a constant dying. We will
>not have time to worry about immortality. In my opinion this kind of talk of
>immortality that some have been doing is not only a belief, but it is an
>oxymoron, as it serves no function. In love, there is a constant dying to
>the old. When everything is always new, it will be clean again, and many
>people can be helped. This is my genuine opinion, and I am even afraid
>to speak this on here, which is sad.
>
>This message is not about you and your behavior, necessarily, but I use
>it to link to, as it has brought again to my mind an interesting question,
>which I have pondered many, many hours: the time-appropriateness of this
>particular teaching in the form it is now being presented. Sincerely, Wry