Theos-Talk Archives (September 2005 Message tt00244)

9/29/2005 3:56 AM



Dear Gerry:



What you say about the realities of the day changing - I understand as the
way in which the words alter - but the essential "Heart Doctrines" be they
ancient or modern, do not vary in intent or moral import.



Brotherhood as an ideal, can only exist in honesty, truth and tolerance. 



The forms change -- agreed - but the inner PERCEIVER, the Real Human - the
ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS - that is a constant, an immortal. 



It is the inherent, innate and eternal Spiritual Self of every being
(including humans). 



Memories fade but the primary ONE SELF ever remains invariable and "without
a shadow of a turning."



If we mind our own business we won't be trying to discover or impute to
other errors and falsities - one ought to be most careful about what one
writes or says. The continuing impact of writing is something that needs
correction once that some obvious error is exposed. 



Who has time for "apologies?" 



Self-excuse and tortuous reasoning is value less.



That is error admitted. 



So admit it, and get on with the WORK. 



When we can think and write as HPB or the Masters do, then we may venture to
"criticize." Until such time we ought to be quiet -- and study -- and
LEARN. 



As I see it, our duty is to pass on what is truly valuable. Not to act, is
ingratitude. 





============================



<<The UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS is not an organization but an

ASSOCIATION of free individuals -- of volunteers - of students of THEOSOPHY.
It has no By-Laws, Rules or Officers. >>



Perhaps not, but it does have what Jerry H-E calls tradition, and what I

call lineage. 



In general, the ULT perceives the original writings of HPB and Judge to be
literal truth and everything else as suspect and unreliable. Such a black
and white view opens itself up to witch-hunts and book-burnings, doesn't it?





==================================



DTB If we are working together to secure a clearer understanding of a
verity, then we are not trying to find fault with others. 



When we detect a difference or what seems to us to be an error, we first
draw attention to that, and ask about its accuracy. 



We ask for sources or facts to compare our joint understanding.



Then we point to areas of disagreement on facts. 



We are not engaging in a combat or a contention, and debate to "win." 



If however there is a persistence in gross error it appears to me to be
necessary to warn others of a possible entrapment.



This is why I perceive differences between the "original teachings" and some
subsequent interpretations or presumptions of ability to correct areas where
we are not experts and have no basis to present. 



What I write and think, for instance is not of the eminence or integrity of
what HPB would. So I efface myself, but reserve the right to ask for
further illumination. How else can anyone grow in knowledge and wisdom? 



In saying this I keep reminding myself of a caution which I desire to
continually apply to myself: found in the Voice (p. 29-30): --



"Self-gratulation, O disciple, is like unto a lofty tower, up which a
haughty fool has climbed, Thereon he sits in prideful solitude and
unperceived by any but himself. 



False learning is rejected by the Wise and scatted to the Winds by the Good
Law. Its wheel revolves for all, the humble and the proud. The "Doctrine
of the Eye" is for the crowd, the "Doctrine of the Heart" for the elect. The
first repeat in pride: "Behold, I know;" the last, they who in humbleness
have garnered, low confess: "This have I heard." 



=====================================



Well that does not settle everything,



Best wishes,



Dallas





-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:45 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: The Resurgence of Pseudo-Theosophy



<<The work and presentation of a philosopher should always be thoroughly

checked for exactitude and statement of facts. If these are misstated or

misquoted deliberately then a LIE is to be seen. >>



Dal, unless the "philosopher" admits to lies, we would have to read his

mind, woudln't we?





<<The word "LIE" has a strong impact. But it lets the reader or listener

know exactly what is thought of an expression or usage. It is not

"hypocrisy." Hypocrisy is to pretend to be something that one is not. >>



The word "lie" when used as an accusation against another human being

implies knowledge of that person's intent and of that person's agenda. Who

of us has such knowledge? Most of the time, what we perceive as "lies" are

just good-faith misunderstandings.





<<THEOSOPHY does not invite "true believers." It invites free and

determined questing MINDS - those who desire to know the TRUTH about

things. Having secured confirmation of facts, it demands a fearless

expression of them. >>



Here's the thing Dal, no one has "secured confirmation of facts" and it is

just here that all of this nonsense begins. When we call the SD truth, then

we will naturally believe that we have secured confirmation of facts merely

by reading it and taking it as literally true. Christians do this with the

Bible, and Muslims with the Koran and Jews with the Torah and so on. It is

only by seeing all of these things as models of truth, as exoteric

descriptions of ineffable esoteric truth, that allows for tolerance.





<<HPB wrote in the Key (p. 271) "We should aim at creating free men and

women, free intellectually, free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and

above all things, unselfish." >>



In which case, we should be free to write books.





<<The UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS is not an organization but an

ASSOCIATION of free individuals -- of volunteers - of students of THEOSOPHY

. It has no By-Laws, Rules or Officers. >>



Perhaps not, but it does have what Jerry H-E calls tradition, and what I

call lineage. In general, the ULT perceives the original writings of HPB

and Judge to be literal truth and everything else as suspect and

unreliable. Such a black and white view opens itself up to witch-hunts and

book-burnings, doesn't it?





<< They have assumed a single duty: The keeping in print of the original

teachings of THEOSOPHY as recorded by H. P. Blavatsky, so that all students

may go direct to those and read and study for themselves WITHOUT ANY

INTERMEDIARIES. In terms of work, they usually also provide regular

study-classes where these "original teachings" of THEOSOPHY are read and

discussed. >>



And this is, I am sure, a good thing. No one argues with this duty.





<< In this one fact is safety for all students. The opinions of

"intermediaries" or "interpreters" are excluded. >>



What happens to free thought, to HPB's "free intellectually," when other

views are "excluded?" It seems to me, as an outsider, that your very words

are conflicting, and I find this troubling from a psychological point of

view. You cannot quote HPB's "free intellectually" and then exclude

writings that you don't personally agree with all in the same post. It

sounds hypocritical.





<< The "clash of opinions" is fruitless (and not to be respected) unless

those "opinions" are demonstrable as actual FACTS. >>



Dal, my friend, there are no "facts" as such. Reality is relative and as

such, so are facts. What are facts in this DAY are not factual in other

DAYs or in other universes. Man's inhumanity to man throughout history was

always based on perceived "facts." But I agree with you that an author of

a book should distinguish between facts and opinons, whenever possible, yes.



Jerry S.







---

You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net

List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-56348C@list.vnet.net



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]