Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00142)

Feb 6 2005



Dear Friends:

In order to save time and future embarrassment, can we say and adopt ?

The problem with "dead-letter" teachings is not the way they are expressed
but the way the person who expresses them sets his or her tone of
"authority."   

In an attempt to make others depend on them, they usually set a tone that
demands acceptance without further explanations being demanded. Debate is
discouraged. That IS NOT THE WAY OF THEOSOPHY 

Of course everyone has to be grateful for someone who introduced them in
this incarnation to THEOSOPHY -- but that achieved, the student is
independently on their own. In fact we are all "on our own."  

Our whole progress, incarnation after incarnation, depends on our ability to
maintain a fixed integrity of spiritual purpose. Our definitions of such
purpose, for ourselves, are our individual concern and not that of anyone
else. 

Of course the matter of accuracy, universality and TRUTH enters the picture
-- and for the benefit of all, nothing ought to be written which cannot be
proved in an impersonal way. Opinions help no one. Facts do. 

In regard to writers who claim t advance THEOSOPHY after HPB -- their logic
and accuracy has t be checked with those ( The Masters' and HPB's writings)
-- they are, for us, the source of THEOSOPHY in this era.

However, there are some who hold that THEOSOPHY "evolves" -- but in my
reading, I have not yet come across any improvement or advances over the
original presentation Of course I may be blind, or have bound myself to the
pas, or to insist to stridently on "basics and fundamentals" -- but then,
if true, those are my limitations. I am constantly on the lookout for
anything that relates to our philosophy, and that might either improve or
disprove its credibility. I always expect other contributors to be doing the
same. 

Opinions are of no use, unless they meet the criterion of utility and
practicality, impersonality and universality -- just like scientific
reports of facts observed. Thereafter, anyone ought to be able to verify
them independently.

THEOSOPHY is supposed to be an account of FACTS IN NATURE. Not skepticism,
opinions, speculations or polemics -- facts ! This includes history and the
records of the past accessible to all -- and the logic and honest ability to
think and recognize accuracy when presented, regardless of who does the
presenting. Names don't matter, but IDEAS do. 

That does not mean questions cannot be asked. They ought to be our best
defence against "authority." 

I my opinion from what I have read of HPB in her writings of THEOSOPHY, and
then, made a careful contrast, and comparison with CWL, etc., no
cohesiveness or logic that holds good is present in those later writings.  

That is my personal conclusion, and others can hold me wrong, but when I see
THEOSOPHY contradicted and attacked, I am very attentive to the statements
made and seek to prove them to be either right or wrong. 

So far, in my balance sheets, THEOSOPHY wins.

Best wishes, 

Dallas
 
===============================

-----Original Message-----

From: Konstantin 
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 10:04 AM
To: 
Subject: : Answer to Leadbeater and Bailey are a problem