Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00429)

Hello Krishtar,
Yes I try and use logic as best as i can...lol.
I certainly would not call myself a materialist at least not at this
point in my life.

I like to think that I can keep my mind open to new points of view as
they come along, so for me I can only remain honest to myself and my
journey as it unfolds in my own way.

The implication in Pedro's statement as I read it is that some people
on this group are saying only the"teachings of HPB and the Mahatmas
are true" I think is a misrepresentation of what is actually being
discussed and put forward at least by myself without question.

The issue that keeps getting diverted from is that CWL and AB changed
the teachings of theosophy that were given out by the Mahatma's.
Some we should ask are :

Did HPB and the Mahatma's give out teachings?

Did CWL and AB then change these teachings completely after claiming
that they were in clairvoyant communication with the very same Adepts?

(Something is rotten in the state of Denmark I fear)

Why does Adyar seem to disallow the critical examination of these
clear contraditions in its publications when it claims it is really
concerned with free spiritual search and enquiry? 

If it is really concerned with the dangers of dogmatic beleif it would
address this issue.

This issue has only been ignored.

WHY???

I repeat I have never suggested that HPBs and the Mahatma's teachings
are "true" and CWLs or any other "seers"teachings for that matter are
"wrong"....but that they are different.
This was the main matter I was addressing.

I am trying to be as clear and straight forward as I can in what I
suggesting.
Therefore it may sound blunt...sorry!
Regards

Perry 


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "krishtar" <krishtar_a@b...> wrote:
> Hi Perry.
> 
> IMHO it sems to me that you are looking at the theosophical wisdom
with a very materialistic and logic mind, not even the minute
statements in SD or Isis can be confirmed by the mere use of your
intellectuality.Most of what the Mahatmas recorded by the pen of
Blavatsky are , as you know, a truth about the inner side of things,
all we have here around us is mere manifestaion of all the laws she
was trying to show and demonstrate.
> I gess that as human instruments, as she said , cannot demonstrate
the veracity of much that what she taught, you Perry should tune in ,
increase your inner sensibility somehow.Itīd be the only way to
discover by yourself if "theosophy may be wrong".
> The sense that something is really true must come from inside.
> 
> Regards
> Krishtar
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Perry Coles 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:46 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: endless series of Seers
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>    
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]