Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00424)

Pedro I don't know how to put the issue anymore clearly than it 
already has been put.

Nobody is saying (as far as I can ascertain) that HPB's writings are 
infallible or even true for that matter(as is my case I don't know if 
they are "true")

Each individual can only access that for themselves over many 
incarnations I would imagine. (that's if reincarnation is "true")
To me the writings have enough in them to keep me reading and sharing 
them with others but always in a critical way open to new rationales 
as they are presented.

Theosophy may be wrong ! 

The ideas seem at this point to me to have some voracity so I 
continue my study of them, for now anyway.

You may need to take the Mahatma to task over his own statement as to 
the need to be "regularly initiated and trained" in order to have any 
confidence on inner plane readings of psychics, that is not my 
statement but his.(is he right ? I don't know… the rationale seems 
consistent to me)

HPB made repeatedly the same comment it's a shame she's not here for 
us to pose that question to.
These statements are hers and the Mahatma's statements not mine or 
anyone else's.

I place the same quote from `Key' I placed earlier I think it 
explains the situation of theosophical teachings far more clearly 
than I can :
Keeping in mind the second question on blind faith and how its not in 
the "theosophical dictionary"
This is the key to it never becoming dogma or holy writ.



ENQUIRER. But what are your data for this assertion?

THEOSOPHIST. What science in general will never accept as proof -- the
cumulative testimony of an endless series of Seers who have testified
to this fact. Their spiritual visions, real explorations by, and
through, physical and spiritual senses untrammelled by blind flesh,
were systematically checked and compared one with the other, and their
nature sifted. All that was not corroborated by unanimous and
collective experience was rejected, while that only was recorded as
established truth which, in various ages, under different climes, and
throughout an untold series of incessant observations, was found to
agree and receive constantly further corroboration. The methods used
by our scholars and students of the psycho-spiritual sciences do not
differ from those of students of the natural and physical sciences, as
you may see. Only our fields of research are on two different planes,
and our instruments are made by no human hands, for which reason
perchance they are only the more reliable. The retorts, accumulators,
and microscopes of the chemist and naturalist may get out of order;
the telescope and the astronomer's horological instruments may get
spoiled; our recording instruments are beyond the influence of weather
or the elements.

ENQUIRER. And therefore you have implicit faith in them?

THEOSOPHIST. Faith is a word not to be found in theosophical
dictionaries: we say knowledge based, on observation and experience.
There is this difference, however, that while the observation and
experience of physical science lead the Scientists to about as many
"working" hypotheses as there are minds to evolve them, our knowledge
consents to add to its lore only those facts which have become
undeniable, and which are fully and absolutely demonstrated. We have
no two beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> 
wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR<ramadoss@g...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Were there not several instances of what is said in Isis 
> was "apparently" 
> > different from later explanation in SD. When one deals especially 
> with 
> > matters what psychics can see and describe, there are bound to be 
> some 
> > differences. Until such time that *we can for ourselves see first 
> hand*, 
> > there are going to be differences of perception. It also reminds 
me 
> of the 
> > blind men and the elephant. Each had a different perception and 
all 
> are 
> > correct in their limited perception.
> 
> 
> Mr Ramadoss:
> 
> I fully agree with your view. We should aim at direct perception of 
> the truth (or otherwise) of the teachings for ourselves. 
> Regarding "Isis", see what Master K.H. wrote (ML 18, chronological):
> 
> "(By-the-bye you must not trust Isis literally. The book is but a 
> tentative effort to divert the attention of the Spiritualists from 
> their preconceptions to the true state of things. The author was 
made 
> to hint and point out in the true direction, to say what things are 
> not, not what they are. Proof reader helping, a few real mistakes 
> have crept in as on page 1, chapter 1, volume 1, where divine 
Essence 
> is made emanating from Adam instead of the reverse.)"
> 
> Perhaps the present-day generation of students is faced with a kind 
> of antinomy: "Theosophy encourages the seach for Truth, but only 
the 
> teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas are true".
> 
> Pedro