Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00643)

Hello Anand,
You wrote :
"So Perry must learn to accept differences without losing temper"

I have only just read these comments, you accuse me of 'losing my 
temper'.
In which post do you claim I have done this
Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...> 
wrote:
> 
> 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