Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00547)

Sept 19 2004

Dear Mauri:

As I see it there are broadly two positions:

1	One does not know = ignorance 

2	One knows = knowledge

Between these two there is DOUBT

It is important to know that SOMEONE or SOMETHING does the doubting.

What is the subject of doubt:

1	There is something factual

2	There are several alternatives

3	There are norms and regulations 

4	There are no norms or regulations.

5	There is a lot of talk about nothing definite. [ "Speculation"
based on -- what? ]

In THEOSOPHY I find that there is a comprehensive view taken of our
situation as individual thinkers and choosers in a world /universe in which
law (and laws) support all existence.

The position taken (in THEOSOPHY ) as basic is that we are immortal minds
all on a common pilgrimage towards complete knowledge -- which is a wisdom
that can guide us if chosen to act in a harmless manner and thus avoid for
ourselves adverse (or bad) Karma.

Is this arguable?  

I think our existence and questioning supports the concept of a "reality" we
all share, regardless of how that "reality" is understood (or denied) or
partially grasped by others, or given names and connotations to which not
all will subscribe.  

The fact is: 

1	it (our environment (small or large, visible or invisible, and many
combinations thereof) IT IS THERE /HERE. Descriptions are immaterial. 

2	We are also there/here , and

3	We interrelate with all these things, our environment (visible or
invisible)_ and we are affected by the decisions and actions of others
(humans, etc) -- and in turn we affect them.

4	What then do we seek? A Purpose? And explanation for our presence?
A guess a to our potential futures?

I find that THEOSOPHY (if studied) gives useful answers.

Just talking about words gets us almost nowhere.

Best wishes,

Dal

====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri 
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 1:07 PM
To: 
Subject: re "fundamentals of Theosophy" and opinions

Dallas, I think, wrote: << << It is 
important to define to ourselves what 
THEOSOPHY is. In this there will be 2 
categories:
1	The fundamentals of THEOSOPHY
2	Opinions about THEOSOPHY and what 
it may be. >>

While "fundamentals of Theosophy" 
(partly, wholly ...) may be seen seen in 
terms of opinions, I suspect that there 
might be a somewhat general tendency 
(even among some students of Theosophy, 
maybe ...) to interpret various karmic, 
interpretive precedents (as in the case 
of "fundamentals of Theosophy"...) as if 
they (the precedents, the apparent 
fundamentals) had somehow transcended 
their basic status as karmic/mayavic 
content or "opinions" in their basic 
sense---not that some aspects of what 
might be called "fundamentals of 
Theosophy" might not, in some cases, be 
seen to have value in terms of 
modeling/exoterics that are seen as 
helpful, intermediary. For me, 
reality/truth in terms of "fundamentals" 
(in a sense ...) tends to have two 
aspects: 1. the apparent/immediate 
sense, (as when one might feel the 
impact of a telephone pole when walking 
into it), and 2. the intuitive sense by 
which one might decide, opin or 
speculate that dualistic reality is, in 
essence, Mayavic, prone to various 
interpretive versions in keeping with 
the nature/karma of one's current 
"understanding" (ie, while the impact of 
reality/karma might [as in most cases 
...] appear to be all-powerful 
/pervasive in terms of whatever 
"fundamentals" (per #2) or fundamentals 
(per #1).

G<<Those "fundamentals" ARE opinions my 
friend. Blavatsky's writings are
nothing but opinions. The idea that 
Theosophy is true is, in fact, an
opinion and one that most of the world's 
population do not share. Now, I
happen to share that opinion myself, but 
its still an opinion. We
Theosophists need to be honest with 
ourselves.>>

Yes, and seems to me that "we 
Theosophists" might, in some cases, want 
to distinguish between different 
"senses" (opinionatively speaking) by 
which such as "fundamentals" and 
"reality" and "truth" might be defined, 
with a view towards creating "more 
relevant" forms of modeling with a view 
towards transcending modeling altogether.

Speculatively,
Mauri