Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00179)

This relates to a key concept that I've seen best described by de Purucker
but also discussed by Blavatsky. Here's some comments and an HPB quote from
a previous posting of mine:

http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/200112/tt00100.html

Eldon

-----Original Message-----
From: krishtar [mailto:krishtar_a@brturbo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 11:35 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World A Question for the New Year


If the absolute evolves. it is not absolute.
The absolute cannot evolve, or itīd be relative, and when there is
relativeness, we are not dealing with the absolute anymore.(qwack!)

Krishtar



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 2:48 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World A Question for the New Year



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@yahoo.com> 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]



   
Yahoo! Groups Links



   





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links