Theos-Talk Archives (February 2006 Message tt00080)

Hi Robert,
Nice to have you with us.
To give more points of vieuws which lead to understanding
and lightenment.
One thing I have to complete the picture in what I have written 
before,
is that what you complete in written, with help( and there are many 
roads to Rome) but we need to make for ourselves discernments and 
investigation.

Its worldvieuw is founded on universal oneness amidst apparent 
diversity, the reality of inner planes and inner laws of nature and 
the existence of the path to selfrealization and the attainment of 
each individual's highest spiritual potentials.
As a way of life, it promotes understanding, unity, respect for all 
religious traditions, compassionate altruism and the living of the 
higher life.

Also Masters wrote in their letters: everyone needs knowledge through 
study entlightened by inner capacity ( I think not leading to 
competition) but to contemplativity.
Meditation for the moments necessary and always to be aware.
Same Krishnamurti lectured and maybe a lot more others can teach this.

It is a practical fact which leads to higher consciousness.
For me it is not important by whom that jewels are written.

I think the strenght of HPB and other leaders was that they did not 
pretend to know all and the more we know, the less we know.

That does not mean we must not study, but we can see the relativity 
in that.
Also what is done by another, don't need to be done again.
For me they don't need to invent the wheel again.( only faster);-)

That in later years there have been a lot of people making a crack 
regiment of TS, was never the purpose;  also not to give usefull 
tools to incompetents.
Greetings, Christina L.




-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> 
> I am Bruce MacDonald, editor of the theosophical publication, 
Fohat. 
> By way of helping everyone to get to know me I offer the following.
> 
> &#65279;I have read over some of the recent posts and am amazed and 
delighted
> about all the potential avenues of discussion that present 
themselves.
>  The students so often seem to be scratching at the surface of a 
topic
> before moving on, or they say things that on the surface look true
> without exploring deeper.  Let's look at a few examples.
> 
> &#65279;Bart wrote: 
>     carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
> >As to me, he is welcome to do so. I would be proud to be          
> >attacked instead of her.   To be critized for defending HPB is good
> >karma,  not only to me, but to all those who have the  opportunity
> >and the priviledge to do this.  I also happen to be among those
> >students who have a heartfelt commitment with their souls not to be
> >silent while utter lies and libels are publicized against their
> >sacred Teacher.
> 
> "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all
> in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H."
> 
>           	 - Koot Hoomi.
> 
> &#65279;Now one may ask what is happening here?  I can't know for 
sure what
> Bart is alluding to, but here is how I understand it (and please
> correct me if I'm wrong).  Carlos comes close to sounding like he 
has
> put HPB on some sort of pedestal and commenced worshiping her.
> However, to read it that way would be uncharitable.  Bart then 
teases
> Carlos with the kind of reply that the enemies of Truth so often 
trot
> out in these types of instances giving us the KH quote (a quote
> referring to the capitalized pronoun "Him" that Christians are so 
fond
> of) out of context.  At this point bells should be going off in the
> head of every theosophist who reads this and we should be asking
> ourselves how to understand the principles of this passage from 
Carlos
> so that when fellow theosophists are attacked for allegedly 
worshiping
> anyone, we know how to defend them.
> 
> &#65279;Christina helps us out here by writing:
> >By the way true occult students don't need lectures or letters from
> >anybody, for their knowledge, intelligence and contemplative 
overlook
> >is an inside developement.
> Christina seems to be pointing out that it is life experience 
coupled
> with our own inner light that leads to understanding and progress
> along the Path and the role of teachers is beside the point.  It is
> true that it is experience coupled with our own flashes of intuition
> that lead to understanding, but there is still a role for teachers. 
> Teachers provide us with the map that allows us to progress more
> quickly along the Path.  Dharma Yoga is the slowest way to move 
along
> the Path while Jnana Yoga is quicker and safer.  The spiritual 
teacher
> gives what he knows to the student motivated only by love.  If the
> student does not feel moved to show the teacher great respect for 
this
> act of love, then it is likely that the student will make limited
> progress along the Path.
> 
> &#65279;When Carlos chooses to defend his Teacher of the sacred 
or "sacred
> Teacher" it is only because he understands this fact.   Blavatsky 
died
> a poor woman writing to the very end trying to promote the spirit of
> the movement that she helped initiate.  She did not profit 
materially
> from founding the Theosophical Society.  In fact most of the little
> income she made was used to help further the cause.  If she didn't
> profit then why did she do it?  As I understand it, it was done out 
of
> love for humanity and this makes her a Great Soul (excuse the
> capitals) and therefore deserving of respect.
> 
> &#65279;In as much as we are all trying to help others along this 
same Path
> and don't do it for money but rather for love of humanity, we all
> deserve to be shown this same respect.  For example, if Bart were to
> accuse Daniel of being a CIA disinformation artist specializing in 
HPB
> and Theosophical matters who is trying to plant divisive ideas 
within
> the body of theosophical knowledge, we should all have to defend
> Daniel from Bart and I am sure that we all would.  Daniel has put in
> thousands of unpaid hours helping theosophists and if he has made 
any
> errors, then it must be assumed that the errors were out of 
ignorance
> (a defect that we should all have the humility to acknowledge 
having).
> 
> &#65279;Frank brings up an interesting point in defense of Daniel.  
When
> writing on what we should do with literature from people that attack
> theosophy and HPB, Frank writes:
> >I think to silence criticism (as it is customs among the
> >theosophical" groups in Germany f.e.) is always a position of fear
> >and frustration.
> >    According a movement can only win its struggle when it includes
> >its opposition.
> It seems to me that Carlos is accusing Daniel of a lack of
> discrimination.  Frank points out that we cannot hide or ignore
> disparaging material and he is correct.  However, I don't think 
Frank
> goes far enough.  As I understand it, there are at least three 
levels
> of thought in the presentation of material.  First, there is 
archival
> material which is of interest to the historian-researcher.  These
> are experts in a given field and can read the various materials and
> understand them in the context of history.  The researcher uses the
> archival material to argue theoretical positions.  These positions 
are
> vetted by his peers and accepted or rejected.  The accepted 
positions
> become a kind of secondary material vetted by a group of experts.  
The
> popular historian use these vetted positions to present material in 
a
> popular way to the untutored public.  The public are not experts
> and therefore lack the means to discriminate between truth and lie,
> accepted theory and rejected theory, etc.  They are just looking to
> understand the subject at a superficial level and are not willing to
> invest the time needed to discriminate between the true and the 
false.
>  There is a responsibility that the popular historian assumes to his
> readers only to provide vetted material. Carlos sees Daniel's book 
as
> the work of the popular historian. Daniel mixes unproven allegations
> (lies and hence disgusting) with uncontroversial accounts. The
> untutored masses have no way to judge this material and so are left
> confused.  For theosophists, Daniel's work is not overly problematic
> because theosophists should make an effort to know their own history
> and perhaps Daniel's book will prompt them to do so.  For those
> outside the movement, the argument is that it is not appropriate.
> 
> &#65279;This is already too long.  I have some further comments 
that I will
> save for a future post.
>