Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00101)

Hi Dallas and all of you,

Some views:
It seems, that you have still not have quite understood, what I am referring
to.

Of course each of us has a free will to decide.
I did NOT say that Theosophy has anything to do about "stifle thinking".
But, I questioned whether using only UNENDING crossreferencing and indexing
would
actually help the readers here at Theos-Talk developing their "inner organ",
i.e. their understanding of the words ParaBrahman and Fohat - and how
closely related to their
OWN consciousness and conscience they really are ?

To Dallas and the readers: What is your answer to the above ?
I often find timely put allegories and other teachings much better.

I quote some of the words from my last email on this issue - the following,
which you by no surprise
avoided answering in your email in the below:

"But is the UNENDING crossreferencing and
indexing what a true Theosophist and a initiate would call proper,
spiritually
adequate when talking about place, time, the people involved, the teaching,
the
students, the teacher(s), the surroundings etc.. ?
I will deeply question that on more than one occasion here at
Theos-Talk during its time of existence. Will it not be much more advaisable
to the
student to use his or her own words instead of this almost extreme
exaggartion
in use of - unending crossreferencing and indexing. Is'nt it wasting more
time, than it
is gaining ?
One can of course on one level appreciate the age of the
computers with their fancy capeabilities to turn any large amount of
scriptures
into a relevant index.
But on the other level - the higher one, - one could question
whehter it develops the inner organ of spirituality or not ? Maybe it is an
obstacle to its development ?"


Dallas wrote:
"Scholarship" is not a crime,"

My answer:
Well you should just try to put that one forward to your own master.
I bet, that kind of teaching will not be approved of without some kind of
hesitation.
Even HPB would shake her pretty head on that one.
The TRUTH is, that - Scholarship a such - very often is a 'spiritual crime',
when viewed with
the eyes of the Master.
All those theosophist (especially in the western countries) with their
PHD.'s and their Bachelor examines etc...
They need so many of them to 'unlearn' their - narrowminded teaching
manners.
As you rightly say: "There are many ways and approaches to study and
learning."
What about teaching the readers about them by the manner your eamils are
created ?
So why always using the method of: UNENDING crossreferencing and
indexing ? Especially when it is inproper to do so, when one takes the
place, time, the people involved,
the teaching, the students, the teacher(s), the surroundings etc.. into
account ?

Dallas wrote:
"We often desire to find out the WHY of things. "

My answer:
Well what "We" do is not always, what you say in the above Dallas !

And your farmer "seeds" are according to me, kind of western. They don't
answer why it is so important to keep continuing emphasizing so much -
UNENDING crossreferencing and indexing - WITHOUT putting
other kinds of teachings into account when it is proper and timely.

Yes agreed. Language is an obstacle for a great number of readers
and writers at Theos-Talk.

A for your quotation of HPB's words in the Secret Doctrine.
You could ask your own self why, HPB so very often used
allegorical teachings, - often mentioned the "7 keys" etc... - and
called her own book a mere ABC of occult teaching - using
ONLY 3 or 4 of the 7 keys. (Vol. II, p.767).
(I.e. the last pages of her famous works 2nd volume).

Why do you put the question whether it is worth to consider the teachings
of HPB ? Of course it is so - to some of the readers here. Why
do you from time to time use of space with such a question -
I just don't get it.

Dallas wrote:
"What displeases one may please another. That is to be discovered
by the one affected."

My answer:
Yes, yes. But, that doesn't make the bad actions of UNENDING
crossreferencing and
indexing more truthfull, does it ? I.e. when they ARE bad.
Of corse sometimes, they a appropiate - but not 99.9 % of the time.
Am I mistaken ?

Yes: "It might be good to hear from others on this subject."

Yes: Everyone is free to use and consider or reject -- what else can
be the case as we are all free-willed."
And as if I said anything else ?

A view:
The first thing the students have to understand is, that they are ignorant.
Really they are. And then they should learn - by reading - the
books the need to read - and seek to experience, what they need to
experience.
Mosten often, the student doesn't like what is offered.
The habit of egotism barrs the students progress.

If Theos-Talk keeps up the idea of only using ONE method of
teaching - and doesn't care about telling others about different kind
of teaching methods, but the one and only - the 'western' one - i.e.
UNENDING crossreferencing and indexing, - where will it all
go ?


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...and a smile...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Crossreferencing and the like...


> Saturday, May 10, 2003
>
> Dear Friend:
>
> In my esteem, there is no attempt in Theosophy to stifle
> thinking. In any case it is impossible to do so. Each one of us
> is quite free.
>
> There are many ways and approaches to study and learning.
> "Scholarship" is not a crime, and the refraining from providing
> information may be one. The decision is again, as always,
> interior to the individual concerned. The recipient decides
> whether to accept or not.
>
> We often desire to find out the WHY of things. How to proceed?
> Don't we look for prior work? If we find it, ought it not be
> consulted, compared thought over and exposed to others for their
> evaluation? If we can get several involved in looking, are not
> our joint chances of success increased? As I se it, if several
> work sincerely together the best results are achieved.
>
> Example: the farmer, using what he has of wisdom, sows his
> seeds, and from there it is up to the elements to assist the
> seeds to sprout and grow. Karma has of course something to do
> with this.
>
> One of our problems is language -- as sometimes the necessary
> definitions of analogies are not easily available, or if
> available, are not always understood at first reading.
>
> Example: Take H P B's exposition of the THREE FUNDAMENTALS:
> GOD -- LAW -- EVOLUTION in The SECRET DOCTRINE [Vol. I pp
> 13 - 19] -- only 6 pages -- she says that the whole doctrine of
> Theosophy is based on a correct understanding of these.
>
> Is it worth trying to understand her ? Is THEOSOPHY useful, or
> are we trying to discover, all of us, if it is? No one is
> proficient, we are simply, all of us, students.
>
> What displeases one may please another. That is to be discovered
> by the one affected.
>
> If it were a question of "opinion" then problems will invariably
> arise. If it is a question of data, texts, facts, observations,
> law, etc.. already laid down for thousands of years, then at best
> one has to study and discover if those clams are correct. It is
> for this reason that "quotations" are used. We are all
> discoverers -- pioneers. And, through brotherhood we try to
> assist each other.
>
> All information offered is, as taken and considered to be of the
> best of motives, attempts to assist. Assistance need not always
> be accepted. But assistance is for a wide audience and not for
> any one in particular.
>
> It might be good to hear from others on this subject.
>
> Everyone is free to use and consider or reject -- what else can
> be the case as we are all free-willed.
>
> Theosophy like any science has a fund of data. In our case we
> have as proximate source the writings of H P B, and W Q J. But
> even if this is my view, I know others will disagree with that.
> How else can conferencing take lace?
>
> The real question is " what is the nearest expression to truth
> that are impersonal and universal, and which if understood and
> used can accelerate our approach to the inner truths that Wisdom
> ( Buddhi) keeps in store for us. Is it not the embodied mind
> that rebels and objects? f so, why? I think this question can
> only be answered by ones' self.
>
> Everyone is free to consider and decide, and determine if what is
> offered is wrong or delusive. The question is then, what
> measuring rod are we using? And what would we recommend? If that
> can be made available to all, then the understanding can grow and
> be shared.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>