Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00042)

Hi Paul,
There's an interesting portion in the Chohan's letter -
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-choh.htm

"The intellectual portions of mankind seem to be fast dividing into
two classes, the one unconsciously preparing for itself long periods
of temporary annihilation or states of non-consciousness owing to the
deliberate surrender of their intellect, its imprisonment in the
narrow grooves of bigotry and superstition, a process which cannot
fail to lead to the utter deformation of the intellectual principle"

It perhaps shows the importance of a non dogmatic and honest
questioning of our ideas and also the importance of ethical
development along with intellectual development.
Knowledge guided purely by self interest tends towards misuse of power.

All the powers knowledge brings need to be used in not only the
material but also the `spiritual' interests of all as best as we can
discern what that is.
This requires debate and even argument on not just a nuts and bolts
level but also on a philosophical and ethical level.

The TS I've noticed has a very dangerous and unhealthy attitude to
debate and argument.
It seems to have a sort of Pollyanna type of approach that argument
and debate are `unbrotherly' which is as I've said before totally
dysfunctional to put it mildly. 

Anyone who raises issues of serious debate is silenced and/or ignored,
which is just as bad.
If the TS is not setting an example in an openness and active
willingness to publish intellectually challenging points of view on
its own history and the various writers teachings in its history.

The irony of this group is that it's a sad testament to how far off
the tracks the TS is when an independent website is the only place
theosophical students can express there concerns and controversial
opinions.
Wasn't the TS established to be haven and place were free inquiry was
not only cultivated but demanded?

If the implications of `surrender of the intellectual principal' is as
important as the Chohan says what sort of karma is the TS making for
itself.
What sort of nucleus has it become?


Regards
Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
wrote:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > My own approach to the study of not only theosophy but any subject 
> is to remember that as much as you may know or think you know 
> something for one thing you may be completely wrong and for another 
> there is always an endless amount more to discover.
> > 
> Hi Perry,
> 
> That approach is certainly harmonious with the attitudes of HPB if 
> not of her most ardent admirers.
> 
> > The key for me is what kind of mindset is it that is being 
> developed in me. Is it a mindset that is always able to genuinely 
> look at a long held belief or firmly entrenched idea completely 
> differently and freshly?
> > 
> 
> And what characterizes such a mindset? I would say it requires 
> caring more 

about finding truth than about proving one's belief 
> system. 
> 
> > Is it a mindset that is looking to be rescued and looking for
> > certainty or one of fluidity and that is able to see a challenge 
> to my beliefs as an opportunity rather than an affront. Very often 
> our ideas become our identity and our beliefs our tower of
> > security. The worship of personalities is always problematic as 
> the rational mind becomes blinded by devotional feelings.
> > 
> 
> Exploring history as an endless quest for new insights, rather than 
> a search for final answers, seems to characterize what most 
> historians actually do in practice. But for the majority of 
> nonhistorians, history seems to be a subsidiary branch of religion 
> or politics. Historical truths must be subservient to religious or 
> political Truth. Especially so when honored personalities are 
> involved.
> 
> > Any writer needs to be assessed by the credibility of what they 
> write rather than our particular devotion bent we may feel towards 
> them. Devotion to a personality I've found is a major trap as 
> otherwise very rational and intelligent people can become completely 
> irrational and sacrifice reason and more importantly compassion and 
> truth at the lotus feet of devotion.
> > 
> They can also become actively destructive when reason and compassion 
> have flown.
> 
> > As we discover more of the underbelly of our theosophical history 
> with the advent of the internet and the fast tracking of information 
> I hope we as theosophical students can try and look at this 
> information with fresh and alert minds and not fall into the trap of 
> devotional wishful thing or protectionism.
> > 
> 
> Can't say I share your hope, but I do wish that it be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> > Lets keep these dialogues open and not be afraid of constructive
> > criticism or new information that we may find personally 
> uncomfortable.
> > 
> It takes a certain amount of honesty to admit that what one is 
> feeling is personal discomfort based on fear rather than righteous 
> indignation based on justice.
> 
> > If we are `right' or `wrong' surely it is of secondary importance 
> to a more expansive understanding. If we discover information that 
> HPB and the Mahatmas were wrong we should welcome this information 
> as it may set us on a clearer path.
> > 
> There is a big difference I've noticed in how different categories 
> of people receive certain kinds of ideas. Welcoming information 
> that conflicts with preexisting beliefs is as common among scholars 
> as it is rare among religious and political believers.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul