Re: PART II RE: Theos-World RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?
Aug 28, 2005 12:36 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Dallas,
JHE
From my perspective, I see no difference between the Christian who
accepts the Bible as authoritative and the Theosophist who accepts the
Mahatma Letters as authoritative. Instead, I would see it in a
relative sense. That is: The Bible is authoritative for Christians and
the Mahatma Letters are authoritative for Theosophists.
------------------------------------------------
DTB In my experience Catholicism invites no study, questioning, or
criticism. THEOSOPHY does. I seeks to open the human mind.
In the 1960s, there was an Ecumenical council where the Pope drastically
changed the fabric of the Catholic church. Catholics were told that
they need to use their conscience to determine how to conduct their
lives--not by what the Pope says. Today, while the People says no to
birth control, over 80% of the American Catholics ignore him. I would
say that the only Churches which do not encourage questioning and
thinking are the ultra conservative Evangelical groups. But they only
account for a small minority of Christians today.
HPB I the Key wrote ( pp. 270-1)
also:
".we would found schools which would turn out something else than reading
and writing candidates for starvation. Children should above all be taught
self-reliance, love for all men, altruism, mutual charity, and more than
anything else, to think and reason for themselves. We would reduce the
purely mechanical work of the memory to an absolute minimum, and devote the
time to the development and training of the inner senses, faculties and
latent capacities. We would endeavour to deal with each child as a unit, and
to educate it so as to produce the most harmonious and equal unfoldment of
its powers, in order that its special aptitudes should find their full
natural development. We should aim at creating free men and women, free
intellectually, free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and above all
things, unselfish. And we believe that much if not all of this could be
obtained by proper and truly theosophical education. "
I have seen this message in Christian writing too. Except, they would
use the term "proper and truly Christian education."
DTB I am speaking of the common laws of behavior that prevail when we
travel, not their origins. If we do nothing immoral we are not made the
victims of whimsical laws said to be religious in origin and in
interpretation. You may travel to France or Canada or Mexico but not know
the text or their rules and regulations (anymore than their citizen know
them) . But if you do nothing "wrong" you wont be harried.
When I travel to other countries I make errors all of the time, because
I am often ignorant of the customs. I am not harried, because the
people know that I am ignorant and let the incident pass without
comment. When foreigners visit here, I see them also making error out
of ignorance. I also ignore them, because I know that they are also
matters of ignorance of American culture.
JHE
According to one current school of thought, relative truths are an illusion
caused by the fact that the predicate "is true" exists in our language.
---------------------------------------------------
DTB I agree that language has severe limitations when thought is to be
conveyed accurately.
But even in such a case the predicate "is true" could not originate unless
there was such a thing and its opposite or Lie. I don't think there is a
god case for "fancy" there.
The pairing of opposites is also a function of language.
DTB
If we had access to a knowledge of the "ultimate units of time" and
"space," we might be able to determine (approximately) what some of the
"relative (mayavic) truths" are.
JHE
But, since we don't, the argument becomes circular. See, for instance,
Anselm's famous perfect island argument for the existence of God.]
---------------------------------------------
DTB But I say that our Mind is not limited as is implied there - it
pierces through such flimsy, illogical barriers. It is an independent
fragment of the Universal Mind - this constitutes us an INDIVIDUAL, and our
personality is its tool. As an immortal it has, as memory, a vast string of
past experiences that {Buddhi} can draw on.
My experience is that the mind is like a hamster racing on a wheel. It
runs on and on with its thoughts. I can prove it: Sit down for a
moment and stop thinking--just for a moment. I bet that you will
discover that you will not be able to do that. If, you can't, then who
is in control? You, or your mind? Buddhi is not achieved through
feats of logic, but by putting aside that silly hamster and peering into
the infinite.
DTB I was not inquiring into the modern history of ancient thought
schools (as are to be found displayed in the "SIX SCHOOLS of THOUGHT" [SHAD
DARSHANA] of the ancient Hindu system.
Yes. I nice chart of classical Indian philosophy.
One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is one
that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS.
Why do you think getting lost in details is such a good thing?
The argument begins with the famous quote from Exodus, "never
suffer a witch to live."
------------------------------------------
DTB
That is Old Testament -- Jesus did not say or endorse that.
True. But not relevant to the minister's point, or my approach to his
argument.
He stated that his teachings were not to be viewed in the light of the Old
Testament. Or, am I wrong ?
I don't recall such a statement. Rather, Jesus often quotes the Torah.
I believe that the OLD TESTAMENT ought to be excluded from true
"CHRISTIANITY."
You'll have to take that up with the churches.
I also believe that GNOSTICISM ought to be revived. It is this that contains
some of Jesus' secret teachings to the Apostles. The Church proscribed them.
[see PISTIS SOPHIA]
It has been. Theosophy is a form of Gnosticism.
-------------------------------------------------------
The signifying Hebrew word in that passage originally denoted a person who
communed with the dead or with spirit to gain information. They were not
considered evil. It is just that the writers of the book of Exodus were
writing a series of laws for people to follow.
One item on their agenda was to discourage Jews from
involving themselves with Canaanite magic. When the Bible was
translated into Latin, the Hebrew term was (mis)translated as
"maleficom." Basically, one who brings harm to others by uttering
curses. Obviously, one term has nothing to do with the other.
During the time of King James, there was a belief in Witches--People who
made pacts with "Satan." James, was anxious to find and exterminate such
people, so he made sure that maleficom was translated into "witch,"
therefore, giving him Biblical justification to exterminate Witches.
The modern Wicca Religion began in the late 1940s, and is basically a
nature worshiping religion. Its followers do not practice communion
with the dead for prophesy, nor do they issue curses to harm others, nor
do they make pacts with "Satan." Therefore, historically there is no
relationship between the "witch" of Exodus, the "witch" of St. Jerome's
time, nor the "witch" of King James' time.
--------------------------------------------
DTB Understood -- THEOSOPHY does not encourage any intercourse with
Kama-Rupas. But it says this condition can be cured, and does not kill the
unfortunate person so afflicted.
Perhaps so. But the point is that the minister connected together a
series of historically unrelated ideas and distorted them into his own
theology.
Can you give a summary of yours for comparison?
It would help me understand. Dal
My what?
DTB
This what I had in mind, to quote you: "I could recite to you the
'ORIGINALS' for each Theosophical tradition."
I have not tried to characterize these. I try to compare all things to
universals, and impersonal expressions of what appears to be basic and
foundational concepts. I also can see that each "tradition" has "pared"
(added to or detracted from) and "reformed" their concept of the basics.
OK
I also can see that each "tradition" has "pared"
(added to or detracted from) and "reformed" their concept of the basics.
Sounds to me in the above sentence that you are characterizing the
traditions.
Best wishes,
Jerry
W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
================== PART II ===================
Begin Part II
-----------------------------------------------------
JHE
Other arguments for the existence of Absolute Truth are based upon
linguistic mind games. For instance: "There are no round squares and
there are no square circles." Or, to deny the existence of Absolute
Truth is making an Absolute statement, which proves the existence of
Absolute Truth.
There is much more that I could say, but this is enough for now.
-----------------------------------------
DTB
I have always abhorred "faith" which to me signifies: an improvable blind
belief" and why should I take anything important as "true" without
verification ? How do I know the assertion is AUTHORITATIVE ?
------------------------
JHE
From my perspective, I see no difference between the Christian who
accepts the Bible as authoritative and the Theosophist who accepts the
Mahatma Letters as authoritative. Instead, I would see it in a
relative sense. That is: The Bible is authoritative for Christians and
the Mahatma Letters are authoritative for Theosophists.
------------------------------------------------
DTB In my experience Catholicism invites no study, questioning, or
criticism. THEOSOPHY does. I seeks to open the human mind.
HPB I the Key wrote ( pp. 270-1)
also:
".we would found schools which would turn out something else than reading
and writing candidates for starvation. Children should above all be taught
self-reliance, love for all men, altruism, mutual charity, and more than
anything else, to think and reason for themselves. We would reduce the
purely mechanical work of the memory to an absolute minimum, and devote the
time to the development and training of the inner senses, faculties and
latent capacities. We would endeavour to deal with each child as a unit, and
to educate it so as to produce the most harmonious and equal unfoldment of
its powers, in order that its special aptitudes should find their full
natural development. We should aim at creating free men and women, free
intellectually, free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and above all
things, unselfish. And we believe that much if not all of this could be
obtained by proper and truly theosophical education. "
And:
"ENQUIRER. But you said that "ascetic practices" are not obligatory.
THEOSOPHIST. No more they are; but the first thing which the members learn
there is a true conception of the relation of the body, or physical sheath,
to the inner, the true man.
The relation and mutual interaction between these two aspects of human
nature are explained and demonstrated to them, so that they soon become
imbued with the supreme importance of the inner man over the outer case or
body.
They are taught that blind unintelligent asceticism is mere folly; that such
conduct as that of St. Labro which I spoke of before, or that of the Indian
Fakirs and jungle ascetics, who cut, burn and macerate their bodies in the
most cruel and horrible manner, is simply self-torture for selfish ends,
i.e., to develop will-power, but is perfectly useless for the purpose of
assisting true spiritual, or Theosophic, development.
ENQUIRER. I see, you regard only moral asceticism as necessary. It is as a
means to an end, that end being the perfect equilibrium of the inner nature
of man, and the attainment of complete mastery over the body with all its
passions and desires?
THEOSOPHIST. Just so. But these means must be used intelligently and
wisely, not blindly and foolishly; like an athlete who is training and
preparing for a great contest, not like the miser who starves himself into
illness that he may gratify his passion for gold. " Key, pp.
259-60
-----------------------------------------
DTB
A sense of cooperative and interactive brotherhood under impersonal and
universal Law, would certainly tend to give a reasonable assurance of
veracity to any proposition placed before it ?
Is that not the tacit basis for all legislation and legal procedures -- and
we may see this operating throughout the world ? Why should philosophy
forego that advantage ? What does "common sense" say?
---------------------------------
JHE
I don't believe this is the basis for all legislation and legal procedures.
According to my late Lawyer, American law derived from British common law.
In the case of Islamic law, I understand it to derive from the Koran.
Jewish law comes from the Torah and interpreted through the Talmud.
----------------------------------------
DTB I am speaking of the common laws of behavior that prevail when we
travel, not their origins. If we do nothing immoral we are not made the
victims of whimsical laws said to be religious in origin and in
interpretation. You may travel to France or Canada or Mexico but not know
the text or their rules and regulations (anymore than their citizen know
them) . But if you do nothing "wrong" you wont be harried.
----------------------------------------
Where are the "relative truths" emanating from? (knowledge of detail or
measurement of differences and separateness) .
JHE
According to one current school of thought, relative truths are an illusion
caused by the fact that the predicate "is true" exists in our language.
---------------------------------------------------
DTB I agree that language has severe limitations when thought is to be
conveyed accurately.
But even in such a case the predicate "is true" could not originate unless
there was such a thing and its opposite or Lie. I don't think there is a
god case for "fancy" there.
----------------------------------------------
DTB
If we had access to a knowledge of the "ultimate units of time" and
"space," we might be able to determine (approximately) what some of the
"relative (mayavic) truths" are.
JHE
But, since we don't, the argument becomes circular. See, for instance,
Anselm's famous perfect island argument for the existence of God.]
---------------------------------------------
DTB But I say that our Mind is not limited as is implied there - it
pierces through such flimsy, illogical barriers. It is an independent
fragment of the Universal Mind - this constitutes us an INDIVIDUAL, and our
personality is its tool. As an immortal it has, as memory, a vast string of
past experiences that {Buddhi} can draw on.
------------------------------
JHE
As for the gold metaphor: I think that the manner of one's search
depends upon one's mining techniques. I prefer an historical approach
to understanding (but also like to use others too). Some prefer a
phenomenological approach. Others, an essentialist approach and, still
others, a post-modern approach etc. It appears that you prefer the
essentialist approach. That seems to work for you. The historical
approach works for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
DTB I did not mean mining techniques or molding methods. I allegorized
GOLD for TRUTH.
JHE
I got your metaphor. I am also using GOLD as a metaphor ("allegory" is
the wrong word here) for TRUTH. I just took it a little further.
DTB
Is that under the impulse of Manas, or of indecisive and thoughtless,
mindless Kama ? I thought we were supposed, at this period in the great
cycle, to be ridding ourselves of "belief" and entering the realm of logic,
reason and proof?
JHE
That "period" of "logic, reason and proof" began with Comte Positivism
in the 1850's. HPB writes against it in Isis Unveiled, by the way.
Today, we call this approach to truth "Modernism" or "Essentialism."
This approach was hierarchical in nature, and came to be questioned in
the 1960's when Thomas Kuhn came out with his important work "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
While "logic, reason and proof" are still alive and well, they are no longer
used in the old hierarchical structure. However, this "manasic approach,"
if you want
to call it that, is only useful for relative truths in certain applications.
------------------------------------------------
DTB I was not inquiring into the modern history of ancient thought
schools (as are to be found displayed in the "SIX SCHOOLS of THOUGHT" [SHAD
DARSHANA] of the ancient Hindu system.
-------------------------------------
SHAD DARSHANA: 6 Philosophical Demonstrations
|-- 1. MATERIAL
Prakriti: 3 Schools
| +--------------------+--------------------+
| Named: Vaisheshika Nyaya Purva Mimansa
| Rishi: ( Kanada-rishi ) (Gautama-rishi) ( Jaimini )
| Content: Doubt, Denial Mantra
meanings
|
|-- 2. SPIRITUAL
Purusha: 3 Schools
| +-------------+------------------+
| Named: Sankhya Yoga Uttara Mimansa
(Vedanta)
| Rishi: (Kapila-rishi) (Yajnavalkya) (Badarajna, Vyasa)
| (Patanjali)
(Shankaracharya)
| Content: Evolving Man and God Atman: root of Man &
God
|
consciousness
3. Vedanta :
+--------------------+-----------------------------+
I 3 Divisions Dvaita Vishistadwaita Advaita
duality: merging of
Unity of All:
Man & God Man and God in Man is God
persist a Unity
Unity is ALL
-----------------------------------
One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is one
that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS.
JHE
I understand that to be your intention. However, I have never seen an
instance where an essentialist approach yields anything other than
relative truths and a blind faith in transcendent ones. Have you?
-----------------------------------------------
DTB
If BUDDHI approaches the closest to ATMA, then why not use it as best we can
if we can secure some concept of its actuality and methods. [I found
Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS very helpful in this.]
JHE
As I understand HPB, she writes that Buddhic consciousness is only
achieved by one who becomes a Buddha. From my own experience based
upon training in Therevada Buddhist techniques (as opposed to
Patanjali's cryptic little book), one can enter a form of Buddhic
consciousness by (using my own words) focusing into a state of
consciousness of a nature which is pure awareness, which is formless
(i.e. not formed by thought). It takes a while to learn it, but it can
be done by anyone, it think. It is in itself very transforming. Once
one discovers it, everything changes. All of HPB's philosophical
arguments suddenly become understandable through direct experience--not
reason. That is the best I can explain it.
--------------------------------
DTB
I am curious about the "historical method" you use? Can you share ?
------------------------------------------------
JHE
Nothing special about it, and as I intimated earlier, I use whatever
approach works best for the situation. But the historical is generally
most useful for me.
To give an example: Last night I went to a town evangelical meeting
where the minister argued that followers of the wicca religion are
agents of evil forces, while Christians are agents for the forces of
good. The argument begins with the famous quote from Exodus, "never
suffer a witch to live."
------------------------------------------
DTB
That is Old Testament -- Jesus did not say or endorse that.
He stated that his teachings were not to be viewed in the light of the Old
Testament. Or, am I wrong ?
I believe that the OLD TESTAMENT ought to be excluded from true
"CHRISTIANITY."
I also believe that GNOSTICISM ought to be revived. It is this that contains
some of Jesus' secret teachings to the Apostles. The Church proscribed them.
[see PISTIS SOPHIA]
-------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, God is opposed to the Wiccan religion. Of course I immediately
knew his statement is a bunch of nonsense for a number of reasons, and can
be shown to be so from a number of approaches. Most convenient to me is an
historical approach, which goes like this:
The signifying Hebrew word in that passage originally denoted a person who
communed with the dead or with spirit to gain information. They were not
considered evil. It is just that the writers of the book of Exodus were
writing a series of laws for people to follow.
One item on their agenda was to discourage Jews from
involving themselves with Canaanite magic. When the Bible was
translated into Latin, the Hebrew term was (mis)translated as
"maleficom." Basically, one who brings harm to others by uttering
curses. Obviously, one term has nothing to do with the other.
During the time of King James, there was a belief in Witches--People who
made pacts with "Satan." James, was anxious to find and exterminate such
people, so he made sure that maleficom was translated into "witch,"
therefore, giving him Biblical justification to exterminate Witches.
The modern Wicca Religion began in the late 1940s, and is basically a
nature worshiping religion. Its followers do not practice communion
with the dead for prophesy, nor do they issue curses to harm others, nor
do they make pacts with "Satan." Therefore, historically there is no
relationship between the "witch" of Exodus, the "witch" of St. Jerome's
time, nor the "witch" of King James' time.
--------------------------------------------
DTB Understood -- THEOSOPHY does not encourage any intercourse with
Kama-Rupas. But it says this condition can be cured, and does not kill the
unfortunate person so afflicted.
------------------------------------------------------------
DTB
I have labored over years, reviewing the writings and ideas that those who
have succeeded HPB in writing on THEOSOPHY have recorded.
I find (for me) that they obscure more often than enlighten.
Judge is an exception as a writer, as he never assumes to correct or
"know better than" either the Masters or HPB. I am essentially
independent and test everything I reads
with common sense and a sense of the orderliness and purpose of the
Universe, World, Humans, and atoms.
----------------------------------------
JHE
Others may read those writings differently and have different experiences.
JHE
This is all new to me. I have an interest in ancient coins, and have a
small collection of them. From all of my reading, they classify, date
and identify fakes purely by their appearance. I never heard of anyone
taking a valuable gold coin, and assay it (which would deface or destroy
the coin) in order to determine this information.
-----------------------------------------
DTB From what I have read [from texts on Gemology and Precious Metals]
only a very minute quantity is used and the integrity and value of the coin
is not impaired.
-------------------------------------------------------
JHE
Sounds like a time consuming and expensive way to go about something
that can be done by the coin's appearance. However, I can understand,
that in the case of an extremely rare coin, a collector may want further
proof of its authenticity from a second method.
---------------------------------------
DTB
I also would say that every human is a Mind and a Free Thinker.
JHE
Some seem to be freer than others.
--------------------------------------------
DTB
If you will concede me this as a fair basis or "source" then, may we can
proceed to details that I think are valid.
----------------------------------------------
JHE
As a philosophical statement, it would need qualification. For
instance, I could say that every human is a physical body. Every human
being is a type of animal etc. Many statements can be made which are
just true as yours. By qualification, I mean that the statement, to be
philosophically significant, must lead one to a new insight (i.e. valid
details that go beyond points made in Theosophical texts), as opposed to
proving a pre-existing philosophical system.
------------------------------------------------------------
JHE
Yes, I gladly concede to you that you have created an excellent summary
of the source teachings according to your tradition.
------------------------------------
DTB There we go again: You assume I have adopted a "tradition." I say
I am independent, but use any "tradition," to the extent that it is fair,
free of bias, and true to reason and logic.
-----------------------------------------
JHE
You have been with ULT for 60 years or more. Your vocabulary, use of
terms, phrasing, and mode of logic is representative of ULT tradition.
I do not see anything in your arguments, vocabulary, phrasing of
expressions, use of logic etc. that distinguishes you from the ULT
tradition. Perhaps you can point out the differences?
DTB
For example: I have been in life an editor of scientific material for may
years, and privately, a philosopher. The two are not incompatible to me.
THEOSOPHY seems to be the most balanced, all-inclusive and eclectic system
so far made available to us. It needs to be carefully studied so that each
student assures himself of its value. So, having found it the most useful
and truest so far, I defend it and its proponents.
-----------------------------------------
JHE
I can hear Victor Endersby using the same words. Though, he began in
ULT in 1921, was an editor of scientific material, privately a
philosopher. Of course you and Victor are different people. Victor, in
addition was professionally an engineer, he wrote fantasy fiction for
recreation, and edited a Theosophical journal. He also described
Theosophy in much the same way as you.
---------------------------------------------------
In what way is "your tradition (mine)" different from yours, or any other ?
-----------------------------------------
Different traditions have different "authorities." But, we have already
covered this.
Is it the ORIGINALS you are unsure of?
----------------------------------------------------
JHE
No, I'm pretty clear on that. I could recite to you the 'ORIGINALS' for
each Theosophical tradition.
-----------------------------------------------------
Do you mean HPB did not bring Masters' message in full? [ In spite of what
hey "the Masters" say and demonstrate ? ]
JHE
No. I understand the Theosophical teachings.
Can you give a summary of yours for comparison?
It would help me understand. Dal
My what?
------------------------------------------------------------------
DTB
This what I had in mind, to quote you: "I could recite to you the
'ORIGINALS' for each Theosophical tradition."
I have not tried to characterize these. I try to compare all things to
universals, and impersonal expressions of what appears to be basic and
foundational concepts. I also can see that each "tradition" has "pared"
(added to or detracted from) and "reformed" their concept of the basics.
Best wishes, Dal
======================
Best
Jerry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
