Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00548)

Hallo Leon and all,

You sort of asked - how do we - explain it all "so everyone will understand 
it "
As both H. P. Blavatsky, Idries Shah and others has pointed out
it is not only a matter of the content of ones writings, sayings and doings 
and the like
which are important. It is the impact the outlets are creating on the 
receivers, which are so very important.

One more time: It is the impact the outlets are creating on the receivers, 
which are so very important.

That is why theosophists often are called designers (physical or 
non-physical).
Not to pick on him in particular, but Chuck here at Theos-talk is a good 
example of what I am talking about,
when I mentioned - that Theosophy is not a dead-letter science.

A few more words:
Without humor the villain is not ready for wisdom.
So to connect the so very prevalent scientific approach on theosophy
with humorous communications would be an improvement at this place.
It will not turn it into a chat-room. Those who calls this place a chat-room 
has very often forgotten
to act as practical theosophists.
- One could go and make a different forum or more than one forum. One on 
chat-theosophy and one on scholarly theosophy and so on.
That is why I in an earlier email to this place did recommend, that we aught 
to get a new forum.
Yahoo is not the real deal - if anyone asks me.
For instance this type of forum would do much better:
Download free: http://www.phpbb.com/downloads.php
Demo: http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php
I am a little short on dollars at the moment, but I could easily put one 
togehter here in Denmark. But I need the $ for some other goods keeping my 
physical body alive. >:-)
Try to ask Zanoni if he has some dope. >:-)


M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Freedom of Thought


> In a message dated 03/22/05 4:50:25 PM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk 
> writes:
>
> > You should know, that I also in many respects agreed with Eldons recently
> > emailed ideas - though one exception being that theosophy is not a
> > dead-letter sceince.
> I too, agree with Eldon and disagree with denigrators of HPB and the
> teachings of the Masters.
>
> So... What does "not a dead-letter science" mean?
> What kind of science is it?
> And, how do we explain it "in the language of this age" [HPB] -- so 
> everyone
> will understand it who are not yet knowledgeable theosophists or 
> occultists,
> (including those steeped in the blind beliefs of religious dogmas promoted 
> by
> those self professed teachers of theosophy who came after HPB)?
>
> Leon...
>
> P.S. We should remember that if theosophical metaphysics as clearly 
> disclosed
> in the SD (in and around the words and between the lines for the 
> "intuitive
> student" to read and understand) falls apart or can be disproved 
> scientifically
> or contradicted theologically -- then all the connections between the true
> religion and philosophy it synthesized dies with it... Leading to more 
> chaos by
> the dogmatic "religious right" (of whatever stripe) than we already have 
> or
> can bear in this world.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links