Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00165)

The Sanskrit term that relates to this is I think viveka which means
discernment or the ability to distinguish the fleeting from eternal.
The theosophical approach is as far as my understanding goes one of
jnana yoga,
Each student needs to approach ideas freshly and not get too caught
up in there own ego.
I think it was Paul who mentioned how its very hard to truly know our
own agendas and motives completely as many of them are unconscious.

So it seems to me that the nuts and bolts knowledge is only one tier
of the process.
Understanding our own agendas and motives is another and probably a
more important one.
All sorts of psychological factors come into play as to why we think
and act as we do.
Power, the need for attention or acceptance feelings of insecurity
……and as we are really mostly under the influence of the principle of
kama we need to constantly check these things in us as we are all in
the same boat in that sense.

The dilemma the society has is while there are no dogmas in theosophy
are there core teachings that don't change.
I think this was what Pedro was perhaps addressing.
That's the great thing about theosophy it can be very non linear and
on many different levels theres never any pat answers so it's a
challenge to think it though.
I think mental exhaustion comes with the territory


Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@y...> wrote:
> Totally share your views on this subject. I think it is important
that we all develop a totally "open mind set" on everything we read. 
And besides that it is too mentally exhausting to continually have to
prove our beliefs.
> Cass
> 
> Perry Coles <perrycoles@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello Jerry and Pedro,
> Just wondering if perhaps its our understanding is what evolves ?
> None of us can say that the theosophical teachings presented by HPB 
> and the Mahatmas are absolutely correct.
> 
> We may have had some insights into them to greater or lesser degrees 
> but those may and probably will change over time.
> We may discover some of it is not correct and some seems to be but it 
> always needs to be open to re-examination.
> 
> This is why I think it's the kind of mindset that is developing in us 
> that is important rather than what we claim to believe or not believe 
> to be true.
> 
> A mind that is ever open to new information and understandings.
> The information the society is presenting is one set of ideas that 
> may or may not be correct.
> 
> If someone is to present new propositions as being `theosophical' 
> which contradict those given out by the original writings they can 
> only stand on there own merit as determined by each individual 
> studying them.
> 
> But should they be presented as being theosophy?
> 
> Who decides what is theosophy and what isn't?
> 
> If for example if I had an insight that survival of the fittest is 
> the prime law governing the Kosmos could/should that be called 
> theosophy and if not why not?
> 
> How do we judge what is a theosophical proposition and what isn't?
> 
> As Daniel is always pointing out comparison is the key factor, how do 
> the `new' ideas stand up from those originally given out.
> Constant reviewal perhaps is the key
> 
> Just some thoughts
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" 
> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Because I'm only willing to speak from my personal 
> understandings, 
> > > experiences and intuitions, I'm not one to proclaim that 
> Theosophy 
> > > pre-existed in the mind of Parabrahm. You will have to ask 
> > Parabrahm 
> > > about these things :-)
> > 
> > Hello Jerry:
> > 
> > Thank you for your comments. I think the fragment of the beautiful 
> > hymn from the Rig-Veda, quoted by HPB before the Stanzas of the 
> > Cosmogenesis in the SD, seems to indicate that the essential 
> > unknowability of the mystery that surrounds us goes right up to the 
> > very top, perhaps to THAT itself:
> > 
> > "Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here?
> > Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
> > The Gods themselves came later into being—
> > Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
> > That, whence all this great creation came,
> > Whether Its will created or was mute,
> > The Most High Seer that is in highest heaven,
> > He knows it—or perchance even He knows not."
> > 
> > 
> > > Since I don't have daily conversations with Parabraham, the 
> > Masters, or 
> > > even the late Madame Blavatsky, my understanding of Theosophy 
> must 
> > be 
> > > much more humble. I see Theosophy as an expression of a kind of 
> > > perennialism which demonstrates the universality of ideas among 
> > > humankind's myths, religions, philosophies and sciences. I think 
> > this 
> > > definition is more useful, because Theosophy then becomes 
> > something we 
> > > can personally engage with and grow from--otherwise we are left 
> to 
> > > merely be wowed by and parrot writings from old books we believe 
> > to have 
> > > been inspired. In the SD, HPB writes that even the Dhyani 
> Chohans 
> > have 
> > > limitations in what they are able to perceive and understand. If 
> > we are 
> > > to accept her statement here, then, I would ask: why should we 
> > proclaim 
> > > to be True things that even the gods she writes about do not even 
> > know? 
> > > To do so is just another form of self delusion, or self 
> > aggrandizement, 
> > > IMO.
> > 
> > 
> > I also see it along similar lines. The word Brahman, for example, 
> > derives from the verbal root 'brih', "to grow, to expand". So 
> > perhaps growth, expansion, evolution - all three - belong to the 
> > very nature of the universe as a whole. 
> > 
> > If a teaching is something which is shown to someone - a person, a 
> > group, a culture - all of which are also experiencing growth and 
> > evolution, such a teaching needs to be dynamic. Theosophy has also 
> > been called the Perennial Wisdom, and that which is perennial lasts 
> > for a long time, perhaps because its 'language' is one that 
> > acknowledges the changing environment and the growing perceptions 
> of 
> > humans in every age.
> > 
> > Like you, Jerry, I also don't have any daily conversations with 
> > higher spiritual realities and in that respect I am very 
> > much "offline". But I like to think on these things and was very 
> > much heartened by what I read on a bookmark produced by TPH Wheaton 
> > many years ago:
> > 
> > "THINK! It could be a new experience for you."
> > 
> > 
> > Pedro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]