Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00350)

As is so often the case with contentious issues, polarisation rapidly 
occurs. 
We draw our lines in the sand and call upon all our resources to win 
our point. We have at our disposal historical events, putative 
eyewitness accounts, apparently indisputable evidence of one kind or 
another. 
And how else are we to proceed? 

The nature of mind and emotion is dual, the nature of Truth we are 
told, One. 
Does Truth devalue and dismiss the discerning process or is there 
legitimacy in comparison?
If comparison and choice are unavoidable in daily life then perhaps 
this process is as intended in the Cosmic scheme. Perhaps this aspect 
of the scheme is intended to be an approach to Truth. Without 
comparison, do we not run the risk of absolutism with its attendant 
traps of separation, antagonism and conflict?

Should we humans be permitted to compare, discern and ultimately 
decide without receiving hostility and derision from others? If 
sacred cows are known or discovered to be less than sacred, should 
their defenders descend into name-calling, sarcasm or mockery? Or 
can we make use of our comparative mind to further discern the 
illusive nature of Truth? 

Doesn't the Theosophical journey concern the search for truth which 
ultimately leads to Truth? 
And if truth is significant then aren't we looking for wherever it 
may appear? 
And where we clearly discern a number of untruths, might this not be 
valueable for our chosen future direction? 
Or are we to dismiss truth as unimportant, insignificant, valueless? 
If so, how do we determine credibility within ourselves? How do we 
gauge that which is real and meaningful to us? 

Do we become merely pragmatic for the sake of the status quo? 
Do we deny an opportunity for Harmony for the sake of harmony? 

In such cases does fear, under the guise of an assumed requirement 
for stability and permanence, exclude Truth?

Nigel