Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00094)

Wednesday, January 07, 2004


Dear friends:

How does one verify an event or a law?
Does THEOSOPHY provide any answer?


The observer, listener, reader, thinker always makes a judgment as to
the accuracy of what is seen, heard, witnessed, spoken of, described, or
thought about. 

This is then compared with universal evidence, or, as much of such
evidence as is available, and to which many (or few) testimonials are
given.

No one can impose a description of their "truth" (memory) on others.
Nor need anyone accept any other's formulation, dogma, tenet, doctrine,
account as "true."  

This is the problem with religions, as usually expressed. People don't
like to be placed "in the wrong." Also, remember that every priesthood
makes a business of their religion. Believers provide funds. Priests
become property-owners and eventually "politicians."

The only reason we do not find a unified religion in the world is that
very few (of the faithful) bother to explore and examine their own
"religion" to its foundations. This laziness is then exploited. And if
there are those who are unsatisfied in what they find after death,
hardly any "return" to lodge their complaints!!!!!

Of course if one goes into the history of all religious antecedents and
formation, most of those problems are resolved. An unbiased (factual)
history reveals all. 

THEOSOPHY is a compendium of Science, religion and philosophy, includes
(and recommends) a vigorous individual search into the HISTORY of any
statement held to be "true." For this reason "quotations" are used, so
that readers can do the verification themselves.

The principle of Mind-thought, being ever interior to each thinker, the
decision as to "truth" is forever locked away in them. The result is
that some have "open-minds," and others have "closed-minds." The
difference between the two is the "effort to discover TRUTH." And this
is followed by the choice to speak of one's findings and debate them
publicly, if necessary.  

Truth never fears exposure. Lie avoids it.

What may be discussed, argued, proposed, described is always tentative.
In considering all such things tolerance is needed. This is an aspect
of "brotherhood." It grants to others the same freedom we expect to
receive from them.

The greatest mystery that faces us all is death -- and rendering an
account (to what or whom?) of our lives -- as a moral existence
(Judgment Day).  

Say it another way: Have we lived a TRUE life? And, how is that "true
life" to be described? What, for instance, is the morality of
"brotherhood ?" Can it be based on the universality of a spiritual LAW
of excellence that is impersonal and inescapable? Is the UNIVERSE "ONE"
or is it chaos? How is life so universally supported and adjusted to
every smallest or greatest "being?" How does mankind, and each of us,
fit in?

Looking at the instances given.

Take the case of the attempted extermination called the "holocaust" in
Germany. It is foolish to argue this never happened when one knows of an
individual who was there, and whose duty it was to photograph portions
of the event. The photographs exist. The horrible evidence is
corroborated by many others.

It is difficult to argue the world is flat, when one has personally
flown around it a few times and has personal evidence of it being
circular/spherical (as watching eclipses also reveals).

Why waste time on illogical debate or the unarguable?  

But why not spend time on ascertaining what are the basics, laws and
principles involved in any event or proposition, and employ them? If
they are universal and impersonal they are more likely to be true than
not. How can we make ourselves invulnerable unless we learn how to
disentangle truth from lie?

Is this not an important aspect of life? (Or, have we convinced
ourselves it is not fun? And really, has no great importance? ) 

Best wishes,

Dallas

======================================
-----Original Message-----
From: ariel
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:21 PM
To: 
Subject: You can't deny what never happened - 


"There is No Religion Higher Than Truth"

This was the arguement of Socrates, that there is a Truth that should be
aspired for. Meanwhile, the Sophists did not believe that there was an
"Objective Truth." They believed that if you can argue convincingly and
enough people accept your arguement as sound, than this is what is
accepted. 

Many of Plato's Dialogues are between Sophists and Socrates. Socrates
used argument to get closer to the Truth. And he argued that that was
the true objective of argument.

Now, I'm not sure, but maybe what we are dealing with here in today's 
world and in the example below is the return of the Sophists. Now, if
enough people can be convinced that the World is flat, will it make the
world flat? 

CUT