Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01958)

Apl 30 2005

RE: Blind Faith vs Facts

Dear Gerry:


Thanks for pointing out the difference between a statement of certain
universal logical facts -- and a "non-proving" of them by individuals. Thus
we have the dual camps of the "knowers" and the "ignorant." The knowers
form a single camp that test everything and encourage such testing. The
"Ignorant" (a harsh word) are members of many kinds of groups and camps, and
each looks for fellow "believers," who would rather depend on blind-faith
and support those who seem to know more than they do -- Do they ? Why do
they not investigate fully, as the members of the first "camp" do ?

This kind of duality is found (unfortunately) everywhere. We may recognize
it and so escape from its time and space consuming meshes. Do we carry that
attitude everywhere? In all the things we do ? 

What are RULES and LAWS for the investigators of NATURE {our World, and our
Universe}, are annoying bonds and encumbrances for those whose selfishness
causes them to consider disregarding them. Does that make the 2nd category
right?
If there is, as one of the deific qualities, omnipotence-- then the
life-supporting attention to the most minute details of all living things
(by Nature) is evidence of that set of rules and laws from which all benefit
impartially and equally. 

At that rate (you mention) the statements of any specialized department of
Science relating to laws and facts discovered in Nature, are turned into
"beliefs," and are just as much "non-proved" by many of those who acclaim
and accept them. So we could say, that in many cases, there is a credulous
band of devotees that construct a "religion" made of facts discovered by
Science -- and it develops, in time, as a veil or deceptive illusion (maya)
-- that hides the reality and the facts from those who will not investigate.
There are of course many levels and degrees of this type -- right up to the
very threshold of the "Temple of TRUTH."

Is that why many Academics (once established as "authorities,") are
reluctant to investigate or accept evidence that the rules and laws they
were taught, or perhaps they may have discovered, were, are and can be
extended into contiguous fields and analogous depths ?  

Mathematics, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, illustrate a science
of facts that are inarguable, and which all can verify. Additional criteria
are needed to be verified and made precise in both the more "exact" Sciences
(physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy) and the more inexact sciences,
geology, biology, medicine, sociology, ecology, politics and government,
etc... where the "maya" of continual change prevails more rapidly. Is this
not a provable aspect of "omniscience? "

What are the laws and rules of Mayavic change? Can only a Buddha detect
these? 

Incidentally those life-supporting rules and laws established by NATURE, in
minute, or in sweeping and vast detail, far antedate their more recent
discovery. I would say that NATURE precedes all investigation, and its
discoverers are impressed ever more forcefully, with its all-prevalent
wisdom and sensitivity.

It is quite disruptive to anyone's "religion" -- especially to priests --
to discover that the same moral and virtuous basis is present in several
contemporary "other religions." Perhaps that is why the Comparative study
of Religion is discouraged ? Further, if "GOD" is omnipresent, does the
"name" by which IT is addressed matter? It's the same GOD everywhere ?
Right ? 

And we all suffer from a desire to be unique, to some degree, until we admit
our deficiencies, and take steps to remedy the situation for ourselves. We
cannot change others, but we can draw their attention to a common difficulty
and possible failing. Thus the dharma of compassion, charity and assistance
are sustained. Before the entire temple of wisdom in which we all live,
without yet recognizing it, we need to humble our self-centered view. We
all have much to learn, and everyone else can be one of our teachers. We
can then pass on that information down the line ---

As to LAW and GOD being synonyms. That is an argument, I think that arises
chiefly in our Lower Mind. How can they avoid being so ? 

To be ruled, possibly against one's free will, always raises a rebellious
feeling; would it not be reasonable to first test and find out if it is so?
Can anyone "bind" another to an unfair rule? Are people, or relatives, the
chattels of some "chief," or improvident patriarch in the family /
community? Can anyone truly and fairly claim to impose undue constraints or
debts on others? It is done all the time. But that does not make it fair,
true or right. 

Let us ask now: What is the basis for fair government? How do we "rule"
the masses of free-monads that have voluntarily clustered around us and
chosen us to serve as their mentors? Do we even recognize them? Is it not,
ideally, to get them to stand on their own feet? To make their own
decisions? Do discover the truth of brotherhood? Finally to learn how to
"rule themselves."  

Gandhi placed this squarely in front of all colonized Indians: SWA-RAJ or
"self-rule." There is much to be learned by reflection on that. In
acquiring an identity of "self," do they not have to raise their level of
education and knowledge? Is this not why the concept of "pupil-teacher"
prescribed in THEOSOPHY ?

On that basis alone, no one can characterize people who may call themselves
by any designation popularly recognized as religious. (Whether the word
"Theosophy" is used or not, no one can speak for, or characterize the whole
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, or the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, or any association or
individual engaged in Theosophical study and research.)   

We all have a tendency to a laziness that uses such porte-manteau words,
which on strict analysis are found inaccurate. There are wide horizons of
difference that no single word or phrase can possibly cover. [Apply it for
instance to members of any political party, or to a country -- as in: Who
is an American, an Indian, a Chinese ? No definition frees the individual,
does it ? How is there to be true cooperation? ]

Nothing we say or write may believed as true by others, but, when you really
seek to grasp why anything is said, one finds that we are not writing for
"them to understand," but only to make clear what we know for ourselves.
And in so doing we also reveal our own limitations.

So "our" words may be easily misunderstood by others -- and debates over
meaning continue among those ungracious enough as to deny to others the
virtues of generosity, charity, love, compassion and good-will. 

A brief study of the constitution of "man," residing in his 7 "Principles,"
enables any logic-loving person to detect the common SPIRITUAL element that
does away with all disunity.  

(1)Purity of Motive, (2) unity of experience (wisdom), and (3) independence
of thought, are three things that characterize the "spiritual" attributes of
the Individuality.  

To manifest as an entity on our physical plane, as a (4) " physical form,"
(1) a model form or bonding structure, is needed, (2) life energy is
required, and (3) desires for self-centeredness are essential. Thus a
"Personality" is built. 

The lower-Mind loves to dissect, analyse and divide. The Higher Mind sees
only the common goal of a spiritual and actual Unity. Present now, and
present as a tangible actuality, eventually to be apprehended by all without
any exceptions. 

Is that not what the Budha taught in the Noble eight-fold "Way?" Do any of
thee "laws," "ideas," or "facts" constrain anyone ? Of course they can be
expressed in different words.

Best wishes, 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald 
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 2:19 PM
To: 
Subject: Blind Faith vs Facts

<<[Dallas:] THEOSOPHY is NOT "a" RELIGION. [Thank goodness.] >>

"Theosophy, we say, is not a Religion.

Yet there are, as every one knows, certain beliefs, philosophical,
religious and scientific, which have become so closely associated in recent
years with the word "Theosophy" that they have come to be taken by the
general public for theosophy itself. 


Moreover, we shall be told these beliefs have been put forward, explained
and defended by these very Founders who have declared that Theosophy is not
a Religion. 

What is then the explanation of this apparent contradiction? How can a
certain body of beliefs and teachings, an elaborate doctrine, in fact, be
labelled
"Theosophy" and be tacitly accepted as "Theosophical" by nine tenths of the
members of the T. S., if Theosophy is not a Religion? -we are asked.....

"Theosophy is RELIGION, and the Society its one Universal Church;" HPB
 
I would humbly submit that Exoteric Theosophy is indeed a religion, while
Esoteric Theosophy is not, but whether it is religion itself is anyone's
guess. I have already taken some of Dallas' postings and simply by changing
"karma" to "God" I changed "Theosophy" to "Christianity." 

Exoteric Theosophy views atma-buddhi-manas in the same way that Christians
view the soul, and atma-buddhi in the same way as the Christian spirit.. It
views
karma as God, and so on and on. I wonder what the Higher Self does all day?
Polish the stars? Sing praises to karma? While Theosophy may not be "a"
religion, its practice today is damn close.


<<There is no "blind faith" in it anywhere.>>

This is a blantant fib, and one that HPB makes as well. Perhaps she had no
"blind faith" personally but to say that it doesn't exist in the
Theosophical Movement today is nonsense. Of course it does. Theosophists
have blind faith in the Masters. They have blind faith that such a thing as
Beness exists. They reify Parabrahman into a God (which is ok in inself)
and then have blind faith that such a God actually exists (which is not so
ok), and if anyone disbelieves this, just read some of the bhakti-like
posts by Sufilight. Theosophists especially have blind faith that they
reincarnation, and this blind faith derives from the mistaken belief that
they exist as a permanent independent self. I could go on. I see blind
belief in Theosophical posts all the time, so to say that it doesn't exist
is disingenuous. 


<< It needs no priests or interpreter,>>

Again a fib. We each set ourselves up as a priest and an interpreter. We
have to, this is how the TS's are organized and how HPB wanted it. As a
body of doctrines, Theosophy has to be interpreted by somebody. Reading the
Theosophical "original" writings and taking them literally is still an
interpretation, a literal interpretation is just as much an interpretation
as any other and no better. And because literal interpretations are fraught
with illogic and inconsistancies, we soft shoe them by declaring paradoxes.
The only way to avoid the illogic and inconsistancies is to make
interpretations other than literal. When someone says that only the
"original" teachings are valid, they are setting themselves up a priest and
interpreter, and for those very people to claim that priests and
interpreters don't exist is disingenuous. Anyone who says that CWL's
writings are invalid is an interpreter. Anyone who says that CWL's
writiings are valid is also an interpreter. When we post our comments and
thoughts and beliefs on these lists we are making interpretations. And if
we think that we are right and others are wrong, then we are priests.


<< and as a pure statement of facts, it has no "claimants" who
cannot explain clearly and by logic anything it teaches. >>

If you are trying to say that a causeless cause is clear and logical,
then....
If you are trying to say that the Secret Doctrine is a "pure statement of
facts" then...
 
Is it any wonder that the TS memberships are so low? 

Is it any wonder that people look at Theosophy and smirk?

My dear fellow Theosophists: Lets please be honest with ourselves.

OK, I will get off my soapbox now and stand in the corner for awhile.

Jerry S.