Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00580)

Jan 24 2003

Dear Friends and W:

I think I may be misunderstood.

In these lists we are studying Theosophy, so we use the texts and
definitions available to us in its system. What do we find.
Primarily it is eclectic and all-inclusive. It provides a single
reasonable line of thought (the "Heart-doctrine") on which most, if
not all, considerations inter-fit and inter-lock.

It reconciles philosophies, religions and sciences. So why not use it
? Why not show its availability and reasonableness. Why not use it
as a touch-stone to apply to other systems? It is antagonistic to
none except those in which bigotry, intransigence, dogmatism,
fanaticism and special purposes, have vitiated their natures. These
have been named the "eye (or 'head') --doctrines."

I can't recall trying to "kick you off the list." Why should I ? I
object to abrasive writing, statements without adequate proof, and
personal characterizations, as they hold no value in discovering facts
and truth (in my esteem). In fact they divert attention from this as
the main purpose and process for an exchange of views. Those are not
the tools of enquiry, but of "eye-doctrine" debate and lead nowhere.

I do however notice we have some very divergent views. So be it.
Tolerance and an eager desire to understand another's view point are
essential.

The material I present is, as far as I can make it, and think
appropriate : THEOSOPHICAL. I let that be the "authority." It
explains ever patiently its main tenets and the "fundamentals."

What are they? In Theosophical terms they are:

1	Universal Unity and Causation. (We are united to all living
beings.)

2.	Human Solidarity (Mankind is similarly united through the
Universal Mind.)

3.	The universal law of reciprocity and compensation: Karma.
Sensitive to the least impact of thought or emotion, it adjusts and
harmonizes all differences making a continuous effort to harmonize all
differences

4.	Reincarnation as a common process. Allows the undying SPIRIT to
use many "forms" in its evolutionary progress.

These "four links" should bind humanity as well as the Universe into
one family by the bond of a practical and universal spiritual
Brotherhood.

I write so as to leave the reader to decide on the value of what is
offered, and make his or her decision as to its relevance. If I shod
be biased in some way, it will soon be discovered.

I would add that I am quite convinced of my own immortal Spiritual
Self, and am also quite aware that it is different from my
"Personality." But that of course is personal to me, and my way of
thinking. Others may have derived for themselves other
considerations. Theosophy states (claims) it is the one undying and
indestructible process that we know of as a fact in Nature, and is
used by all. I think it is valuable to make this known. Then others
can freely check to see if it is true. Theosophy nee restricts, but
continually opens free vistas to all for research and discovery.

The OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY provides a survey of this teaching about
reincarnation, have you read it? It is ma short book of about 180
pages but it presents a good summary of Theosophy, as doctrine, and of
The SECRET DOCTRINE teachings.

Mme. H. P. Blavatsky had a mission: the presentation of the
philosophy, and of the information that age-old THEOSOPHY has in terms
of History. She did this and let those perform their work of arousing
interest and settling doubts.

If one reads ISIS UNVEILED and then, her many responsive articles,
and finally, The SECRET DOCTRINE and the VOICE OF THE SILENCE, the
breadth and depth of Theosophy is made clear. I think it is fruitless
to try to discuss or enquire into it without a common preliminary
basis of familiarization.

It so happens that in the "West" the ancient traditions (Kaballah,
Zohar, etc...) became muddled with sectarian, priest administered,
dogmatic Christianity, and pretty well lost. In the "East," though
veiled, those ancient records, research and reverence for TRUTH were
still available, and traceable in the depth of the philosophical
religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism,
etc... for presentation and consideration.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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





-----Original Message-----
From: wry
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re to Dallas STUDES and - Buddhism


----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "Theosophy Study List" <theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: Re to Dallas STUDES and - Buddhism


>
> Jan 23 2003
>
> Dear Friend and W.
>
> Yes, I use the INDEX and other reference material a lot, and I post
it
> so that readers may be able to get the same definitions to work with
> that I look at.

WRY: MY comment was that the material you put out was not pertinent to
the
discusssion you were having. I guess it is useless to point this out.

> I do not write for any one or against any one -- but only so that
all
> may read and be informed.

WRY: You did try to get me kicked off this list for doing what other
people
have done, only doing it not even as bad as some others. And you have
never
acknowledged this. You just keep ignoring me when I ask you about it.
It is
sad.

>I have found that generally, few are up to
> date with the necessary information in INDEXES, TEXTS etc... some
are
> newcomers who need that kind of background.

WRY: In the beginning I liked it until I realized that it was actually
counter-productive.
>
> I aim at discovering the truth, or exposing what THEOSOPHY has to
say
> on a subject. I let the information stand, so that others may
decide
> what is for them useful.
>
> I try to encourage individual study. It is the only way to become
> assured of anything. Starting in School, we have all been subject
to
> this rule. We progress then, as now, depending strictly on the
> enthusiasm and energy we put into learning and testing information
> received. We all have to do it ourselves.
>
> In writing, then, I make it a point to take account of others'
views,
> if they appear to seriously disagree with the impersonal and
universal
> aspect of things. I am well aware that I know little about
anything,
> like old Socrates, But I can ask questions.
>
> As for myself, I do expect that any one will feel free to question,
> criticize or ask why I say or write things

WRY: A lot of times you do not answer. You only answer when you can
make
yourself look good.

>I make errors and desire
> to be corrected when necessary.

>I refuse to place myself as an
> "authority."

WRY: Choosing all this material for others is the same thing. You are
choosing for them. No one wants to see himself as an authoritan. It is
sickening. I speak from my own experience of having seen this about
myself.
Why did you try to get me kicked off this list and not others who were
behaving in the same way and worse? I believe it was because I was
challenging you as an authority. It is o.k., but I offer this example
because it is a big contradiction. Please respond.

>So I offer works to be considered, that others have
> discovered, or described, and which seem valuable to me and relative
> to the questions being considered.
>
> My motives are never, as far as I am able to make them, personal, or
> adverse to any one.

WRY: I am sad.

We are all in this living business together. We
> have each one of us been brought up in various "Schools" and
"systems"
> (such as religions, philosophies and sciences). So it is natural
that
> our ways of looking at things will differ. Not "wrong," but
> "different."
>
> I consider we are a "Brotherhood of Souls." Further, I have seen
> enough evidence to hold that every Soul, is an immortal

WRY: As I have said, THIS SERVES NO FUNCTION. You do not need to
believe
this. Anyone who is attentive will see he is akin to his brother.

Just like the
> scientific definition of an atom -- a perpetually moving being under
> Natural Law. Perhaps the Soul of Man is such an atom, made by
> experience into a self-moving inquisitive, sensitive and curious
Mind.

WRY: Perhaps you will not have a fully developed soul until you grow
up
spiritually, as in the present condition, the oscillation frequency is
still
off and there is a LAG.

> Extending this, it is natural for the man-Mind to inquire into his
> environment -- the Earth and the Universe -- to see what they are
> composed of, and what their purpose may be.

WRY: Then find your inner question and stick to it.

>
> Reincarnation as a concept, would make for a long trail of previous
> personalities and earlier relationships under the law of
Karma...and,
> if true we have lived together, met and discussed in earlier
lives --
> we may have participated in the Platonic dialogs, or have listened
to
> Jesus as he preached on the "Mount," seeking to reform the thinking
> and practices of the Jewish tribes of his time -- or to the Buddha,
in
> India 2,500 years ago when he pleaded for mercy and clemency for the
> weak and the under-privileged -- or even Krishna, 5,000 years ago,
> when, as an advisor to Kings, he tried to assist Arjuna to
> self-knowledge and to self-victory (for the Kurus are our interior
> passions and desires, and the Mind has to become victorious over
> them).

WRY: Reincarnation is not like you imagine.

>
> My conclusion is that we can all learn from each other. If we deal
> with facts that can be demonstrated or proved, we step aside and let
> those things plead for themselves.

WRY: Then you should do what you preach. You cannot prove you are
immortal,
but, even more important, "Why would you want to?" WHY WOULD YOU WANT
TO?
This is a real question and worth answering. Why would you want to?
Please
answer this. If you do not know why, which is probably closer to the
truth,
then answer that. It's o.k. Just be honest and everything will work
out. I
am not coming on here out of a clear blue sky and saying people are
not
immortal, as why would I want to? You are making a bold ASSERTION and
I am
REFUTING IT. You are expounding a functionless oxymoron. Try to BE.
You
cannot fully be unless you can die. What is the function of you
constantly
talking this way? It is counterproductive. Madame Blavatsky may have
had an
excuse. Perhaps , in the best case senario, in her OBVIOUS aim of
bringing
eastern teachings to the Christian west, it was TRANSITIONAL, but this
is a
different time. Please answer my question the best you can, and I will
demonstrate to you some problematic and counter-productive aspects to
holding your view.

>
> While admitting that argument has its uses, I am not terribly
> interested in it, and would rather seek for those laws and
parameters
> that unify. Argument divides. A knowledge of law and truth
unifies.

WRY: Enquiry is not the same as argument. I know it can be scarey, but
we
have nothing to lose. I suggest we work together with others to try to
set
up an environment where people can discover together, so material will
not
get hooked into the wrong configurations. Enquiry is one of the
fastest ways
to bring about a great wave of compassion which can engulf us all. If
I am
wrong, if I have wrong view, then I will learn and the world will be a
better place. Argument is static, because people are holding to their
fixed
points. Enquiry is opening and alive and full of discoveries.

>
> I hope this is clearer now ?

WRY: I don't know if you realize this, but you sometimes do not
respond to
individual points. You are trying to teach me and others on here. If I
am
going to believe what Madame Blavatsky has to say, I will find it out
for
myself. I do not mind someone putting out occasional links or doing
what
Daniel does, but it is not good to use any material as authority as
this
avoids enquiry. It is important to go all the way with it, even if the
edifice falls down..Please answer my question (s). I hope are noticing
that
I am answering yours, the best that I can. I have printed out the
writing
you mentioned and will comment later. Sorry about all the typos, but
spell
check is not working with your messages, and I do not have time to go
back
over these. Wry
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas.
>
> ====================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wry
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:22 PM
> To:
> Subject:: Re to Dallas - Buddhism
>
> Hi.. .
>
> What do you do, just go to the index and look something up and then
> just
> post it out here? The passage from HPB you have quoted is not
relevant
> to
> this discussion as it does NOT serve to clarify the issue in
question.
> Plus
> the wording in your message makes it sound it like Jerry said that
HPB
> was
> against Buddhism. I am starting to notice you use words this way a
> lot. It
> is sad. If Jerry is really your friend, why would you do this, as it
> makes
> him sound bad and yourself sound good? I have some problems with
> Jerry, but
> he is trying to communicate with you sincerely and in good faith,
plus
> he is
> somewhat knowledgeable on a subject you understand zilch about. Wry
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: wry1111@earthlink.net
> List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-30975D@list.vnet.net




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/