Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00323)

June 14th


re:  Evidence:

The burden of proof is always, as I see it, a tug-of-war between
what is offered and what is accepted.

That which is accepted is always a matter of individual decision
and responsibility, as I see it, and no claims can be admitted
until they pass the bar of judgment of my mind.  (That is for
myself.)

This being a free world, others may adopt or choose to accept on
any grounds whatever what they believe is reasonable -- or
unreasonable.

The same problem of "proof" and "evidence" arose in 1880/81 with
Sinnett/Hume asking if HPB and/or the Masters would get for them
a copy of the London Times on publication date, to be
phenomenally transferred to Simla -- as "proof" that the Adept
claims, and Theosophy, were "true."

This "test" was refused, and the Master who answered said, in
brief:
"The more evidence advanced, the more skeptics arise."

To further illustrate this there is the "phenomena" of the
production of an extra tea-cup and saucer from beneath the roots
of a tree when HOP was on a picnic far away from the bazaars of
Simla -- it was quite wonderful to have this happen and as the
story goes some remained quite skeptical in spite of the fact
that the tree roots grew in an around those objects and through
the handle of the cup, and also the selection of the picnic spot
had been random.

Final desideratum is always subjective and interior.  But is the
"logic" adequate ?  Now that is debatable, agree that your view
and mine could differ.  On that basis everything is seen
differently all the time by all of us but we tend to agree on
similarities.  At the beginning of the S D  ( p. xlvi-ii)  HPB
quotes from the mathematical law of certitude to show how a
converging degree can tend towards agreement over any subject
considered or any event witnessed.

As to Judge vs HPB on subject of "religion."  He was determining
that "Theosophy" was not "a religion."

HPB was saying, as I understand it:   "Theosophy is religion."
Meaning, again, as I understand it, that it is not "a religion"
with beliefs, rites, rituals etc... but that it "united all who
grasped it as a philosophy, together in understanding."

In the "Declaration" of the ULT " similarity of aim, purpose and
teaching " is offered as a basis for work and unity.  As someone
said not too long ago in these messages, the "core" or the
"original" teachings of Theosophy ( which we owe to HPB and the
Masters) are bases for our common study and understandings.
Apart from those bases we have the many opinions offered by later
students based on their study and thought -- and in many cases
these are found to diverge from the bases chosen in the period of
HPB's life and writing.

It is not what "I say," or "others say" that matters, it is "what
does Theosophy say."

And there I would defer to HPB and the Masters in their writings,
and vigorously try to grasp what they are talking about.  Also,
not "accepting" anything unless it makes sense -- using "my"
'common-sense.'  For that no one else is responsible but my own
free-will and choice.

Personally I am not strong on taking anything "on faith," or of
being a "blind believer" in anything someone else says, unless I
have demonstrated to my self that their facts and logic is
cohesive.  In other words I take responsibility for what I think
and say, and try to pass on, without any strings, those ideas
that seem valuable to me.

As I understand it  is the "heart doctrine" that unites, and not
the "eye doctrine" and all the externalities.

Excuse me for any bluntness its only worth 0.03  (the price
rises)   Dal.

> Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 11:36 PM
> From: "Dr A M Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Paradoxes -- The Unifying Riddleof our Existence

>W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net> writes
>>we need to become familiar with all
>>she wrote on behalf of the Great Brotherhood of the Wise, of
>>which she and the Masters of Wisdom are a part.
>
>We have only her word for this, together with the Mahatma
letters.  It is
>all words.  I  - or anyone else - can make similar claims, but
no one has
>yet been seen to be able to back them up with real evidence.
>
>It is, it seems, a matter of "faith" - like Christianity.  She
also said,  (In
>the KEY) "Theosophy is religion".  In the appendix to the first
edition
>kindly made available by the "other" theosophical societies, an
>American judge chose, on the evidence and claims of the then TS,
to
>disagree.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age:
>http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
>E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>
>