Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00371)

Hello Dallas...

I am very grateful to have a chance to tell how much I appreciate 
reading your posts over the years... they are like a constant drum 
beat (reminder) in my mind, thank you. And, too, I enjoy the ability 
you have to "key up" a thought and make it a little more challenging 
to consider <she smiles>. 

> Those qualities (below enumerated) are to my understanding, indeed
> the best.
> But what are they based on?

I would say, Universal fundamental principles inherent in 
Consciousness. Of course, love, peace, truthfulness etc. are 
spiritual and invisible, but still, they are the foundation of 
everything in life... right down to every atom, right? 

> The spiritual nature of everything where there is true equality and
> brotherhood is an expression of this unity. Perhaps "mutual
> tolerance" is one of the best "glues" around.
> 
"Mutual tolerance?" Yes. Funny, "mutual tolerance" sounds less than 
grand, but so true.

> I notice that the word "fundamentalist? is again bandied around

Yes.... I have been thinking that over too and I think "fanaticism" 
is a the better word <she sez only half in jest>. 

> It is good to be a fundamentalist, because at least then we know we
> start out ( S D I 14 - 19) with universal, unqualifyable SPIRIT. 
We
> then proceed through consciousness, intelligence, law (fair and 
equal
> for all) to harmonize in a vast evolutionary process where every
> "part" in honored as an immortal Pilgrim journeying back from the
> illusions of material forms to the brotherhood of the ONE SPIRIT. I
> am with Nick Weeks in that concept.

I would totally agree with you, even tho, my words would be different 
they would be equal in thought. And, Mr. Weeks? <g> I know for sure 
he is not a mathematician.... 

> In mathematics no one accuses any professor in the sciences of 
being a
> "fundamentalist" as a term of opprobrium. 

I think fundamentalist and mathematician are words that don't go 
together. A fundamentalist loves God (an idol?, dogma perhaps? <g>). 
A mathematicican, knows and loves the Absolute (nothing or 
everything). 

Without some basic unity no
> one could speak to any one else.

Yes <she laughs> it is very hard to speak to anyone here... many of 
us are not in unison. "Words" are very "tricky business" these days, 
wouldn't you say? <g> Words today have too many meanings attached. 
They are "watered down" and powerless to paint a clear picture in 
anyone's mind. I believe one who can use as few words as possible to 
get a point across is one that knows better then most. 

> So what is the matter with philosophers? Are they seeking to get at
> TRUTH or do they want a band of sycophants and "yes-men" hanging on
> their every word? 

I think philosophers have lost sight of the search for real Truth. 
They are all bogged down in "who said this" and "who said that" and 
they have lost their aim.... 

How do you get folk to go to work and do it
> themselves ?

By example.

> Then only will they know for sure.

Yes, must be done from the inside out.

> Best wishes,

Best wishes to you too my friend.
Most sincerely,
Suzanne

> 
> ============================
> 
> Original Message-----
> From: Suzanne
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:13 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Standard of Truth?
> 
> M
> 
> Seems to me there are universal aspects (a golden thread) common to
> all teachings... only the outer symbols change. High moral and
> ethical qualities and standards are the same (universal) in every
> culture. High quality love, honesty, truthfulness etc are
> universally the same throughout humanity. Are not these qualities
> the means to the end result we all seek?
> 
> Most sincerely,
> Suzanne
> 
> CUT