Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00028)

Serious hypothetical questions for serious theosophists: 
(I hope there are more than 300 students on this online loop. ;-)

1. What theosophist or group of theosophists ever claimed that it was an 
"object" of the Theosophical Movement to "form a Universal Brotherhood"?

2. If someone doesn't accept the "Three Fundamental Principles" as being 
absolutely valid and immutable propositions, can he/she call him/herself a 
"theosophist"?

3. How can anyone learn anything when they talk too much, prejudge 
everything, waffle in the negatives, and say nothing positive?

4. For such persons -- what would be their intents and purposes in haranguing 
a group of serious theosophists (among other students listening in) who are 
discussing theosophy as the synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy, 
along with its practical applications in every field on all planes of reality?

Leonardo

----------------------------------

In a message dated 04/09/03 9:38:22 AM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ult-blr" <ult_blr@vsnl.net>
>To: <study@blavatsky.net>
>Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:09 AM
>Subject: [bn-study] Re: MAY THE "LIST" CONTINUE:
>
>
>> Since there is no thoughtful response to my queries I suppose there
>> is no scope for any serious exercise in mutual understanding. Any further
>> discussion appears useless.
>>
>> RP
>
>I have lovingly answered the questions you have asked me, with much deep
>thought and to the best of my abilities, in the spirit of enquiry and with
>an openness to being shown I am wrong, by further enquiry. The questions
>I have not answered, I intend to cover in the near future, and have told
>you so. t took a really long time to write that email, as I am a slow writer,
>and something very time consuming and troubling is going on in my life
>right now, which limits my time.

Stop complaining. If you were a theosophist, you would know. The "near 
future" is NOW! What has love to do with answering a question? Maybe you 
should learn the Socratic Method of inquiry. The only way to teach is to ask 
a question, and the only way to learn is to answer one. Chew on that!

>Enquiry is hard work, but this kind of back and forth questioning is a
>wonderful way for people to learn. Your response is very problematic and
>saddening to me. All I can think is that your original questions were not
>sincere and it was a game, as you were not really interested in what I would
>say and never had an intention to enquire. That's o.k., though sad, but
>if you consider me to be a person who may have a view different from your
>own, how do you except to establish a universal brotherhood by line of 
pursuit
>you are following? you may be angry because I am not falling into line
>and accepting mechanically the three principles of theosophy, which, for all
>you know, I may actually accept, as I have not said whether I do or do not.
>The point I was making was not that these principles are or are not valid,
>but something else.

What else? Blame him. Wipe the tears. Then get off the fence, and learn 
who you are talking to and what you are talking about. 

Enquiry is the easiest work of all. All it takes is a question ... Then -- 
seeing, hearing, and considering the answers. That's study, and that's the 
work. The word "enquiry" is not inquiry, no matter how many times you say 
it. It's real learning that's the hardest work. So, telling without being 
asked (and, especially, without any learning behind it) -- is the quickest 
way to end communications. 

>Furthermore, by your response, you arbitrarily place yourself in the
>position of an authority, as I literally have no idea of what you are
>talking about when you said my response to your message was not thoughtful,
>as I thought very deeply when I made my response (though to you my thinking
>may not be very deep, it was deep to me), and made my response with much
>love and happiness and was looking forward to further enquiry. Since I have
>no idea what you objected to in my response, this is effectively (maybe not
>so effectively, but whatever) objectifying me and putting me out in the cold.

Poor baby. Daddy doesn't know how innocent she is. 
How can thinking be thoughtful if it doesn't go as deep as the question? 

To answer an inquiry properly, one must know more about the subject of the 
question than the enquirer. If the subject is theosophical, then only a more 
advanced student can answer it. If the answer is valid and to the point, the 
enquirer will know it, and ask more questions. If not, he won't ask that 
student any more questions... And, in the spirit of brotherhood, he will 
simply speak out loud that the responder is no "authority" and, while 
professing to be, doesn't know what he/she is talking about. (Thanks, RP)

If you were a theosophist (a true seeker of truth) -- you would know that 
dialogues between two student's on near equal levels of wisdom, who know what 
they are talking about, can be a great teacher. So, sad lady, why don't you 
just stop talking and start listening? 

>If you made several attempts to communicate with me and I repeatedl;y did
>not answer questions etc., I could see you gettting frustrated and quitting,
>but this is not the case, as it is the beginning of communication and I have
>made a sincere attempt. I realize your approach is not typical of the
>average theosophist, though I have seen more of this kind of behavior on
>theosophy lists than on other types of forums. Still, it is always a shock
>to encounter it.

If you were a theosophist, It wouldn't be. No one who is one, at any 
reasonable level of theosophical knowledge, can communicate with you. That's 
a fact.

I heard a theosopher say, "You shouldn't put the cart before the horse."

>I will go over my message with my answers again and try to understand how
>my sincere answers could have led to this radical a response. I will be
>answering further, and also answering the questions I did not get to yet.
>Feel free to respond at any time, but I would appreciate an explanation of
>your above email, as I literally have no idea of how my message could have
>elicited this kind of response from you, and because I do not know what
>you are talking about, there is no way for me to learn. Sincerely, Wry

If you were a theosophist, after reading any of your missives, you would know 
exactly what he's talking about. 

I heard another theosopher say. "You should never put off for tomorrow what 
you should do today." (That makes sense. If you do -- tomorrow, he'll 
forget the question he asked yesterday. Good cop out...) 

He also said, "Put yourself in the minds of the readers" and, "Reread 
whatever you write at least three times before you send it." 

He then said "There's no such thing as an 'impartial observer'" (Other than 
God, I said... sotto voce... shhhh :-) 

Hope you learned something. 

Best wishes, 
</:-)>
(Disclaimer: As the author of the above comments, I am the sole "authority" 
as to their contents.) But, who am I? That is the question.