RE: Theos-World RE: : Pedro again on "ORIGINAL TEACHINGS"
Sep 04, 2004 06:07 AM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck
Sept 4 2004
Does this not bill down to essentials?
If we know the properties of any thing we know how to discriminate.
Without such knowledge we are ignorant and at the mercy of those who may be
sly and unjust to us and others.
"Societies" are unimportant -- they appear to reflect our ignorance and lack
of study rather than anything else. People join usually because the find
there is an expression of idealism in the claims made for such bodies. Or
they hope to profit from some teaching claimed to be imparted.
In practice they learn if anyone is actually doing that kind of work. And
whether there is any real valuable teaching given out. This does still
require of the individual his own effort to study and learn.
Nothing is entirely for free. But we are all ESSENTIALLY FREE to study and
learn from Nature around us.
What do we know of the LAWS of chemistry, physics, engineering, mechanics,
dynamics, hydraulics, electricity and magnetism ? ]
We all use tools and gadgets, drive cars phone each other and use computers.
But have we any idea how and why they work?
We may say it is impossible to learn everything. Yes, but how about the
essential laws and facts? How much effort have we put into really learning
those, so as to make our own practical applications?
Mechanisms and material things apart, how much do we know of our own natures
our psychology -- our feelings, our thoughts, our aspirations, our ideals?
Have we tried to educate ourselves? Or are we so "tired" we feel we are due
some relaxations and some recreation?
And then we stop learning.
We say as a result: "I like this," and, "I don't like that."
If it works that's enough for me, and if it fails then I will call in an
expert to fix it. And where does the money come from?
Consider in retrospect the many years we spent in school and college: The
many types of students we have been with and watched. What they like or
don't like, what they work at, and what they neglect or avoid.
Have we learned from those observations ?
Have we asked ourselves: What has made those differences?
How have we handled our own likes and dislikes?
Let us say we live in a great Universe where Nature on our Earth supports us
all -- and, comparatively, we know very little about the mechanisms and
forces that IT employs to do that.
We are "tenants" in a marvelous " home" -- our bodies, feeling, minds,
inclinations and aspirations -- have we analysed them?
Do we know the difference between the permanent and "spiritual," and the
transitory, evanescent and selfish personal whims and fancies?
What shall we choose?
Which has continuing value ?
That I think is the main puzzle that THEOSOPHY presents to us all -- what
are we going to be doing with ourselves (our Lower Selves) from here on ?
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 2:04 AM
Subject: RE: : on "ORIGINAL TEACHINGS"
Hallo Dallas and all,
My views are:
Maybe the following could be helpful in making you rethink the appearntly
unimportant value of hidden diamonds.
If we can do anything about Imitation, it is to spread the information of
But our doing this depends upon the audinece being prepared. The preparation
quite possibly involves a wideness of horizon and the intelligent use of
clear thinking methods which are largely current in all present-day
societies, though only lately coming into use in our area of interest.
Theosophists and their Imitators.
The negative attitude is to look at the imitators. The positive one, for
sure, is to remember the words of an initiate named JAR, who said that
"false gold only exists because there is such a thing as the Real..."
Q: What is the harm in imitating? I am sure that most, if not all, of the
human development systems which are publicly offered are only imitations.
If, however, these give people pleasure and some taste of a deeper reality,
they surely must have a value?
Here is a story...answering this question.
THE KNOTS STANDING IN THE WAY OF THE TEXTILES
If you take an analogy, you might see it differently. Supposing
we were discussing the art of weaving which might be developed.
Supposing people were at a stage where they could only tie
knots in string, which gave them pleasure and might be regarded
as a fortaste of weaving. If people only imitated the
knotting phase, and in addition regarded the knotting as the entire
art - when would weaving itself come into being, no matter
how much pleasure there was attached to it? Certainly, knotting
would have a value as such: But it would constitute a barrier
to goping further if the idea of anything further were 'abolished' by
people thinking that knots were as far as anyone could go in
There are at least two points worth noting here.
The first is that 'pleasure' certainly is not to be opposed, but
there are many sources of pleasure, and to seek pleasure as a part
of something more specific leads to confusion and more.
The second is that if you get obseessed by the early stages of
something, imagining it to be the whole, you will not go further.
That is why other kinds of literature - often not recognizable as
theosophical literature has importance - even whether some leading
theosophical imitators think it has not.
Do the readers understand this?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application