Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00035)

Dear Dallas,

The questions were hypothetical. But, your answers hit the nail right on the 
head. 
This is lesson 2 for those that need it. :-)

Thank you,

Leonardo 

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

In a message dated 04/10/03 8:47:01 AM, dalval14@earthlink.net writes:

Thursday, April 10, 2003


Dear Leonardo:


See if these answers suit:



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


1


Re: OBJECTS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (1875)



In 1875 apparently the 3 Objects were not formulated -- as

we know them. It they were formulated, they do not seem to

have been written out until 1878 in a circular dated May 3rd

1878.


The earliest formulation is to be found (to my knowledge) in


Blavatsky: COLLECTED WORKS (T P H ) Vol. 1, pp. 375-8


[Do you have access to a copy of this 15 Vol. set?]


A circular dated May 3, 1878 was drafted mainly by Olcott,

Some portions were attributed to H P B (p. 377). In this

volume it reads (below).


It is titled THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

[Its Origin, Plan and Aims]



On pp. 376-7, Section VI, speaks of its objects.


It seems, (fn p. 373) Olcott has attributed this to HPB.

It is a full page, and I append a portion of those mentioned :



" The objects of the Society are various. It influences its fellows

to acquire an intimate knowledge of natural law, especially its

occult manifestations.


As the highest development, physically and spiritually, on earth, of

the Creative Cause, man should aim to solve the mystery of his

being...study to develop his latent powers...to personally

exemplify the highest morality and religious aspiration, to oppose the

materialism of science, and every form of dogmatic theology,

especially the Christian...to make known among Western nations the

long-suppressed facts about Oriental religious philosophies, their

ethics, chronology,

esotericism, symbolism...to disseminate a knowledge of the sublime

teachings of that pure esoteric system of the archaic period, which

are mirrored in the oldest Vedas, and in the philosophy of Gautama

Buddha, Zoroaster and Confucius; finally and chiefly, to aid in the

institution of a Brotherhood of Humanity, wherein all good and pure

men, of every race, shall recognize each other as the equal effects

(upon this planet) of one Uncreate, Universal, Infinite, and

Everlasting Cause."

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


The formulation of the objects in a succinct way is in the


KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) p. 39.


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


2 Any one can call themselves anything. The proof is:


"Theosophist is who Theosophy does."


A profession of "creed" or "belief," as in one's belief in the

accuracy and reasonableness of the "THREE FUNDAMENTALS," does not

prove that they have been understood or are being practised.


At least they may be in some instances quoted or epitomized to help

others to hear, find and study them.


"Thus have I heard...." was the preface to the statements made by

Buddhist monks when quoting from the Buddhist texts they learned by

heart. We ought to use that in quoting Theosophical texts and if

quotations are offered the specific page and book references ought to

be given.


No one ought to allow their unverified statements to stand as true

expositions of Theosophical verities.


Each one ought to be invited to do their own independent corroboratory

research. No one can prove anything to another. They can offer

proofs they are satisfied with, but any true proof is self originated.


One could well do good by learning the "THREE FUNDAMENTALS" [S D I

14 - 19] by heart -- at least it is something valuable and positive to

fall back on.


The best rule is to never judge others. Assume each is doing the best

they know how, if it is constructive, promulgational, or even

preservative.


If it is destructive in use, distorted, false or misleading on the

face of it, then inquire immediately and without delay, of the speaker

or writer, for the SOURCES for statements that can be shown to support

any statement said to be made in the literature of the Philosophy of

Theosophy. Hold the discussion to that limit alone and avoid all

personal opinions.


The reason why the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS was established was to

place the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY within the reach of

present-day students. It also was, and is, to provide for a free

forum, where those original teachings can be discussed. In this work

it also acts as a publisher. A list of original texts can be provided

to any who inquire.

Use: http://www.ULT.org


Interpretations by later students are many. How valuable they are,

depends on the accuracy and impersonality of the knowledge shown. But

always those have to be checked with the originals.


The alternative implies accepting "authority" blindly -- which is

eventually fatal to expressed TRUTH.


No one ought to be fully trusted, not even the present writer.



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


3 The first principle in learning is to LISTEN --


This was a step in learning -- like the "Akoustikoi" of Pythagoras'

school, and Plato's Academy

This period of listening and learning was from 7 to 14 years.


Then only was the right to speak given to the disciple.

Who was then called an "Asketai."


A Master graduate was an "Epoptai."


Same in India "Shravaka" is a listener. "Sramana" is a speaker and a

doer.



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


4 Egotism -- Ambition -- Self-regard ( Lower self )


"Empty pots make the most noise."


"Those who know remain silent. Those who speak are often mistaken."



Humility, silence, good works done in secret, are the marks of true

discipleship.


Also note: It may become the duty and responsibility for some to

speak, and, or write. What they say, and whether they strictly adhere

to the Eternal Wisdom will determine their value.


Look to the future of work done now to preserve and spread a knowledge

of Theosophical teachings and principles.


The Karma that is ours to act in this regard of promulgations and

defense of Theosophy is great in terms of responsibility.


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


Dear Leonardo:


see if these meet with your approval,


Dal


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


-----Original Message-----


From: leonmaurer

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:20 AM

To:

Subject: Re: [bn-study] MAY THE "LIST" CONTINUE: lesson 1


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

>Iquestions 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.