Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00164)

Hello Dallas,

I too also have a problem with "belief"

I don't think you can really know something if your already pre-
disposed to some "faith." As a matter of fact, I think it is 
impossible since you will only see what you believe to be true 
anyway. 

This is why I'm attracted to Theosophy since it says not to believe 
anything which in my mind seems to urge one to actually find things 
out for themselves and verify, verify, verify. Ther comes a point 
when you actually know that the earth is a round globe. No matter how 
many people believe it is flat, it doesn't make it so.

Koshek





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...> 
wrote:
> July 9 2004
> 
> Dear Pedro:
> 
> I have trouble with "belief." 
> 
> Over the tears things and opinions have changed radically, so that 
view
> taught to me when I was in school are supplanted by more refined 
ones. But
> since I started my familiarity with Theosophy and its philosophy at 
about
> the same time, and compared those with standard scientific views I 
find that
> the Theosophical one have stood the test of time.
> 
> To me "belief" or "faith" implies a "guess," an "opinion," or "a 
leap of
> faith" -- without any knowledge to make it at least plausible. 
Where are
> the laws that have to be in operation is my constant question.
> 
> I find the universe is full of laws, and the most disparate things 
and
> events are considered and handled. 
> 
> We need only review the history of scientific discoveries over the 
past 200 
> 
> To me, things tend to be harmonious in spite of particular areas of 
chaos
> and disharmony. The wider one is able to view, the more definite 
is the
> harmony -- or "the music of the spheres" as Pythagoras called it. 
> 
> Concerning the abnormal phenomena which are considered and 
explained by
> theosophical philosophy, at most we can say we are yet to find out. 
M So far
> everything that has been investigated shows that Nature (as a whole)
> contains and coordinates it in some way.
> 
> Theosophy speaks of the "astral" as a subsisting support 
for "physical"
> matter, starting from the molecule on up. It is as though special 
whirls in
> electro-magnetic fields at the sub-atomic-molecular level provide 
the
> support for either aggregation or dispersal of forms that become 
perceptible
> to our physical senses. 
> 
> If any one of us takes a stand and says: "It happened," or, "It 
did not
> happen." Such a position is only an opinion -- as WE WERE NOT 
THERE. 
> 
> It seems futile to me to try to settle such matters 100, or more 
years,
> after the events took place. 
> 
> So, why not say: "Maybe they did." And, to that we can add: "Are 
there any
> comparable events happening these days?"
> 
> Further, during the past 100 + years, have such events been 
reported with
> frequency?" 
> 
> In any case THEOSOPHY is neither proved nor disproved by psychical
> phenomena. Its inherent logic needs study and then analysis can be
> attempted in a fair way.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Dallas
> 
> 
> 
> Dallas
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro 
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:01 AM
> To: 
> Subject: The daily conquest of self
> 
> 
> --- "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
> wrote:
> > The following words of HPB (I think) are very
> > relevant to what Bart alludes to when he writes:
> > 
> > ===================================================
> > The problem is that, if you base your belief in the 
> > concepts that have been promulgated in Blavatsky's
> > works 
> > and the Mahatma letters on the genuity of the
> > phenomena, 
> > then any fakery in the latter implies falsehood of
> > the 
> > former. Except that gets one into a conundrum, as
> > the
> > former emphasize that acceptance of the concepts 
> > should NOT be based on the authority of the writers,
> > but 
> > on their own merits.
> > 
> >
> ======================================================
> > 
> > But as I have pointed out before, many of the
> > concepts
> > in Blavatsky's works and the Mahatma Letters deal
> > with
> > the occult/inner rationale of the phenomena. If
> > phenomena
> > were faked, does that also indicate that the
> > teaching or
> > concept about the phenomena and related concepts
> > were also faked or 
> > madeup or simply borrowed?
> 
> 
> The Mahatmas also wrote about the "daily conquest of
> self", as illustrated in this passage from KH to
> Sinnett: "But what is Self? Only a passing guest,
> whose concern are all like a mirage of the great
> desert. ..."
> 
> Psychic phenomena, by their very nature, can never be
> fundamentally real as the word phenomenon (from the
> Greek, phainomenon: "what appears") indicates. Their
> study may be interesting but is relatively unimportant
> in the perspective of the transformation of the human
> consciousness.
> 
> It may also be important to note that the emphasis on
> the "daily conquest of the self" is at the core of the
> great spiritual traditions of the world, way before
> 1888. If it is true that Theosophy itself is at the
> heart of those traditions, renunciation of the
> personal self (and its attachments, opinions,
> self-importance) may as well be one of its fundamental
> teachings. In this context, the words of the Buddha in
> the Majjima-nikaya are quite pertinent: "The Tathagata
> has no views." How can there be universal brotherhood
> if MY opinion is more important than someone else's
> opinion?
> 
> 
> Pedro 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links