Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00173)

Sept 1 203

Dear Eddy:

May I also offer the following?

Really you have to read, study and make that determination yourself.

If you should take any opinion as correct (such as mine) you will never
know whether it is correct or not unless you do your own work. There
are no valid and entirely trustworthy short-cuts. Each has to arrive at
their own proofs.

No one is going to learn THEOSOPHY and its tents, principles and
doctrines in 2 months time. It takes year of close and careful study.


Let me add the following thoughts


We speak of the importance "fundamentals." What standards for common
understanding and discussion shall we adopt? I mean, we who desire to
find out if Theosophy has any value?

Shall we say: it is "old," throw it out," -- and whatever truth may
be there, let it go too?"

Try doing that with mathematics, science, engineering, physics, biology,
chemistry, astronautics, economics, public relations, world affairs,
local government, etc...

My query is : why is it that we want the freedom to imagine and fancy
solely in the region of philosophy ? Is it that the rigors of logic are
too irritating? If so, why ? Why do we chafe under the apparent yoke
of :

1. a united spiritual basis of excellence, tolerance, brotherhood and
unity;

2. a united active body of Laws, and a LAW of justice and equity that
intelligently binds all living beings to each other --- be they distant,
or within us, to the ultimate degree we can imagine. The existence of
these laws underlie all material forms and give the life. But we do not
know them all.

3. That this vast mass and congeries of living beings progresses --
each individually, and all together as a mass, towards a future that can
only be called Universal Self-consciousness. Nothing is to be neglected
or disposed of. All beings are Immortal Intelligences, and have the
same rights, privileges and goals as all the rest. Thus the present
"savage ignoramus" develops over time into the sage Buddha. The Atom
eventually becomes a Sun and illuminates many others. Every human is
half way along this marvelous, majestic Path to Perfection and a return
to SPIRIT.

Seems to me that Theosophy presents certain basic tenets that are age
old. That they may not be popular is a sorry fact. But does that make
them wrong or useless? It merely says we don't grasp them, and we are
impatient with the time it might take us to grasp them. Nothing valuable
is entirely free. Before learning, we may have a lot to un-learn.

Doe it make those who proclaim their value to be misleaders of those who
will not think about them ?

That some have done a part of the job ought to encourage others to try.
In this we share.

What is there of any bias in this? All are considered equals because of
the SPIRIT (the ONE ) that is resident in each of them. If suggested,
then it ought to be defined. There is one, or there isn't, . which?

Who has seriously studied Theosophy ? Who can write an OCEAN OF
THEOSOPHY or a SECRET DOCTRINE ?

But if we can't, then we can all try to learn? Why are we so impatient
? This is a terrible thing to say, but we are all ignorant of so many
things, our own encouragement ought to be to fill those gaps and find
out if we live in a Universe that has meaning. How do we secure meaning
and purpose for our living?

Something ought to be reviewed here. I say, by our discussions we are
making the future. We are churning the ocean of knowledge and hopefully
we will emerge with an idea of the laws and rules that have been
operating there far before our birth. But each of those needs our
confirmation, and our proving them -- to ourselves.

In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky in -
Section 2 - of that book mentioned the very important issue of thought
systems:

"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy
in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must
be stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided
into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.

ENQUIRER. What is the difference?

THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free
to profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so
prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one
or more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a
philanthropic and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of
brotherhood on practical instead of theoretical lines. .... Members they
are, by virtue of their having joined the Society; but the latter cannot
make a Theosophist of one who has no sense for the divine fitness of
things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own -- if the
expression may be used -- sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome is, as
handsome does" could be paraphrased in this case and be made to run:
"Theosophist is, who Theosophy does." ..."


Best wishes,

Dallas.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy 
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 4:29 PM
To: 
Subject: Dr. Santucci and the neo/pseudo Theosophy


Subject: Dr. Santucci and the neo/pseudo Theosophy


Hi everybody.

I have been reading many articles and opinions from many of you and
still have not finished meditation on them.

But, specially, I liked very much Danielīs article written by Santucci,
about the concept of neo or pseudo Theosophy.

Daniel, what is your opinion, about Santucciīs considering Leadbeater
and Annieīs a kind of false or neo theosophy?

For me is very dificcult to tell because I was presented to Theos. thru
these authors.

It means that I went the contrary way, I got to know Theososophy from
the people who learned ( I donīt know at what certain point though)
from HPB. Not from Secret Doctrine, unfortunately.

And you who have been studying SD for quite more time than me, such as
Dallas, Adelasie or Katinka, what is your opinion?
Is it a false or a neo-theosophy?

Eddy