Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00473)

G'Day Pedro,
Thanks for your further comments.....the poor old Cretans !

Yes as I see the problem that the theosophical society has continually
come up against has very much been related to this issue.

On the one hand theosophy can't be defined or put into a neat little
package "it is beyond the range and reach of thought" ect.
On the other hand there are teachings that can be said to be
theosophical that challenged many scientific and religious beliefs.

I liked the comment on Kant :

"The Encyclopaedia of Religions and Ethics" mentions that Kant, on
the other hand, held that "knowledge is only of phenomena". We may
conceive the existence of "noumena" but we cannot KNOW them as
phenomena. "This gives rise to antinomies: a confusion between
knowable phenomena and unknowable (but real) noumena".

This would be something like the difference between the form of
something and the essence of something (Svabhavat).
Perhaps like say a chair (the phenomena) and then the principle or
quality of chair-ness.(nomena)
Any chair or support could be an external representation of that
quality but not its whole actuality.

Perhaps the problem with inner plane readings is they may tell us more
about our own inner `personal' mindset than what is actually there or
imagined to be there (in the case of psychic vision it could be purely
a construction of our own kama-manasic projection into the astral light).

Adepts I would suggest are more concerned with essences rather than
temporal fuzzy psychic whistles and bangs.

The problem with making definite statements about psychic visions on
for example fairies with wings and gnomes in red pointy hats, is it
only goes to reinforce cultural and stereotyped ideas about perhaps
genuine beings and energies that exist.

Psychics I am sure do see these beings in such a way however is that
more about the programmed social and or cultural mindset that is
projected than about the essence of `nature spirit-ness'.

CWL's comments on the Logos to me show more about his mindset that
perhaps longed for a personal God on a throne .........

Theosophical teachings try and take us into the Essence rather than
reinforce the concrete, programmed and fear based mindset.
CWL and also Alice Bailey's writings reflected and promoted a very
empirical and ridged mindset.
This to me is more the problem I have with their writings.

Does there writing style simply reinforce the ideas the Mahatmas where
hoping to challenge?
Superior hierarchies rather than holistic ones.
Waiting for messiahs and rescuers rather than self reliance.
Worshipping Mahatmas rather than understanding the nature or essence
of Mahatma-ness.
Bailey's books especially dot every i and cross every t in true
British fashion.
7 Rays with definite Masters associated with them ........

This to me is a completely different approach to what HPB had and I
think her writings tend to break down this concrete and absolute
mindset rather than re-establish the old worn grooves.


An old favourite quote of mine of HPB is :
" The first necessity for obtaining self-knowledge is to become
profoundly conscious of ignorance; to feel with every fibre of the
heart that one is ceaselessly self-deceived.

The second requisite is the still deeper conviction that such
knowledge - such intuitive and certain knowledge - can be obtained by
effort.

The third and most important is an indomitable determination to obtain
and face that knowledge.

Self-knowledge of this kind is unattainable by what men usually call
"self-analysis." It is not reached by reasoning or any brain process;
for it is the awakening to consciousness of the Divine nature of man.

To obtain this knowledge is a greater achievement than to command the
elements or to know the future. "


Perry




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Can you elaborate more on antinomy and how it relates to 
> theosophical 
> > teachings I am interested to see your point of view on this.
> 
> 
> G'Day Perry:
> 
> 
> This is indeed a fascinating subject and one which students of 
> Theosophy may not, necessarily, consider important. Having said 
> that, here are my 0.02 pesos.
> 
> Will Durant, in his book "The Story of Philosophy", says 
> that "antinomies are the insoluble dilemmas born of a science that 
> tries to overlap experience". 
> 
> In my university days in Brazil, one of the most popular antinomies 
> put before us was:
> 
> "A Cretan says all Cretans are liars".
> 
> Just follow the ensuing logic: if he is a Cretan he may be a liar, 
> which means that not all Cretans may be liars. In other words, some 
> may speak the truth. But if the statement is true then ALL Cretans 
> are liars, which takes us back to the original statement. There 
> doesn't seem to be a way out, does it? 
> 
> This is the reason why antinomies are declared to be contradictions 
> or paradoxes.
> 
> "The Encyclopaedia of Religions and Ethics" mentions that Kant, on 
> the other hand, held that "knowledge is only of phenomena". We may 
> conceive the existence of "noumena" but we cannot KNOW them as 
> phenomena. "This gives rise to antinomies: a confusion between 
> knowable phenomena and unknowable (but real) noumena".
> 
> The same source above quotes Hegel: "Antinomies appear in all 
> objects of every kind, in all representations, conceptions, and 
> ideas". He also maintained that "every actual thing involves a co-
> existence of contrary elements". The Encyclopaedia includes this 
> quote from Shelley's "Love's Philosophy":
> 
> Nothing in the world is single;
> All things by a law divine
> In another's being mingle.
> 
> The source text of modern Theosophy is "The Secret Doctrine". Some 
> people don't like the word "doctrine" associated with Theosophy, 
> probably because the easily link it with "indoctrination". But the 
> etymology of the word is also fascinating: it comes from the Latin 
> *doctrina*, 'teaching'. And the verb 'to teach', in its root 
> meaning, means "to show". So a doctrine or a teaching is something 
> that is shown to us for our examination and study. Perhaps it may be 
> even a methapor of something which is, ultimately, beyond 
> description. The approach "only *this* is Theosophy, nothing else" 
> may therefore lead to an antinomy for it would deny, for example, a 
> universality that Theosophy claims it embodies. 
> 
> I am reminded here of Heraclitus' well-known phrase: "One cannot 
> step into the same river twice". Doesn't this also apply to 
> Theosophy? What makes it at the same ancient and arcane, and yet 
> fresh and ever new? 
> 
> 
> Pedro