Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00464)

Perry and Paul,
Vedanta says everything is God. Buddhism denies existence of God. 
Christianity recognizes existence of God but it appears more personal 
than all-pervading which Vedanta tells.
So Perry must learn to accept differences without losing temper.
Anand Gholap
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> If I get the gist of what your saying its that we should be wary of 
> not accepting pat explanations or presuming one particular 
> historical perspective is correct.
> 
> I whole heartedly agree, I myself can't claim any great knowledge 
of 
> theosophical history or any history for that matter, but I am 
> struggling and trying to keep up with it.
> For me I would rather know that there's a `fly in the ointment' 
> rather than pretend its not there. 
> 
> I am well aware of the danger of thinking you've point of view is 
> the right one.
> I can only say at this point in time I have a certain understanding 
> based on very limited knowledge that I am sure will continue to 
> change and hopefully deepen to whatever capacity I am capable of.
> 
> I appreciate being challenged as it keeps me on my toes and helps 
> learn and become more aware of any subtle form of self deception or 
> ego avoidance. 
> 
> I am going to have to go over your post a few more times and think 
> it though as I've been doing with your book as well.
> 
> Its an ongoing process !
> 
> Cheers
> Perry
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" 
> <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" 
<perrycoles@y...> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your observations Paul.
> > > It's my understanding that the Adepts that Blavatsky claimed to 
> be 
> > in communication with did in fact say they belonged to a 
> particular 
> > > tradition referred to as the Cis Trans Himalayan tradition that 
> did 
> > > have particular teachings regarding the Kosmos and man.
> > > 
> > No, not "the" adepts, but SOME of the adepts. (I refuse 
> > capitalization here deliberately.) Other adepts before the ones 
> you 
> > refer to were alleged to be "Oriental Rosicrucians" or described 
> > themselves as Hermeticists, etc. What Theosophists have done, 
and 
> > you are unwittingly (I think) accepting, is to collapse all the 
> > layers of different descriptions of HPB's teachers and take the 
> last 
> > version as the only one. 
> > 
> > > If I have got this wrong then perhaps this is a line of enquiry 
> > worth 
> > > pursuing.
> > 
> > It is not wrong to say that the claim to which you refer is 
made. 
> It 
> > is however wrong not to weigh that claim with other references to 
> > HPB's sources and their knowledge and traditions. Or to take a 
> claim 
> > that is subject to historical examination, and simply accept it 
> > without concern that it does not stand up to such examination.
> > 
> > > We should be free to debate challenge and investigate this.
> > > 
> > > While they may (the Adepts in particular KH and M) quote from 
> and 
> > > perhaps support many different points of view from numerous 
> > different sources does not therefore mean that they did not have 
a 
> > tradition within which they themselves belonged.
> > > 
> > But if said "tradition" is entirely implausible in light of 
> history-- 
> > that is Indian-born Tibetan Buddhists of the late 19th century 
who 
> > are fully conversant with Greek philosophy, American 
Spiritualism, 
> > the Western magical tradition, etc. then to simply accept it is 
to 
> > adopt an anti-historical stance.
> > 
> > > Of course the Masters could have been a very elaborate 
> concoction 
> > and blind by HPB.
> > 
> > That also conflates at least two levels and perhaps more. The 
two 
> > are:
> > 1. The Masters as the people who were in fact HPB's teachers and 
> > sponsors. People cannot be concocted. Stories about them can.
> > 2. "The Masters" as characters named and described in 
Theosophical 
> > literature.
> > 
> > To assume that 1 and 2 are identical is again anti-historical, 
> > cutting the Gordian knot to use one of HPB's favorite 
expressions. 
> > 
> > 
> > > We should be free to challenge and investigate this as well, as 
> you 
> > > have done.
> > > 
> > > I don't quite understand your statement that my suggestion that 
> the 
> > > Adept's actually belonged to a specific tradition "destroys the 
> > > essence of intellectual freedom".
> > > Can you elaborate on this I can't see how you come to this 
> > conclusion.
> > > 
> > No, it was that combined with the statement that "this" tradition 
> > could be "accepted" or "rejected." Even in the case of a 
provable 
> > historical tradition, e.g. the Bible, to present it in terms of a 
> > dichotomous choice of accept vs. reject is to destroy 
intellectual 
> > freedom. Accept vs. reject is what is called in philosophy 
> a "false 
> > dichotomy." Kinda like-- "which are you, a Virgo or a 
> Capricorn?" 
> > when there are ten other options that are being ignored. The 
> notion 
> > of having to accept or reject a historical tradition whole, 
rather 
> > than scrutinize it and appraise the individual elements-- well, 
> it's 
> > just not *theosophical* in any sense HPB would have meant. 
> IMOYMMV! 
> > When the "tradition" is *not* historically observable-- e.g. 
adept 
> > wisdom that comes from Atlantis-- the idea of having to either 
> accept 
> > or reject it whole is even more destructive of intellectual 
> freedom.
> > 
> > > A univocal opinion or statement and a multi-vocal opinion or 
> > > statement may equally be incorrect.
> > 
> > Multi-vocal opinion or statement is a contradiction in terms.
> > 
> > > The freedom is in being able to choose for ourselves which one 
> we 
> > may resonate with at any point in time (if any).
> > > 
> > No, the freedom is in being able to analyze all the *individual 
> > elements* and choose for ourselves which ones we resonate with. 
> Then 
> > we can combine the elements from any different traditions that we 
> > resonate to. That's freedom, and it's the freedom HPB used in 
her 
> > life and writings-- perhaps more successfully than anyone in 
> history.
> > 
> > > In the end Paul for me we should be free to challenge any point 
> of 
> > > view historical or philosophical and should always remain open 
> to 
> > new information and research.
> > > 
> > > CWL's teachings are out of bounds in the Adyar society to this 
> sort 
> > > of investigation, this is my main point of contention with them.
> > > 
> > > Perry
> > Understood and agreed.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Paul