Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00141)

Jan 7 2005

As I understand it:

THEOSOPHY has two aspects:

1	History that is continuous on all planes of effort and as time
passes

I would say this is the philosophical and "religious" side of THEOSOPHY .



2	Doctrinal as an expression of the LAWS of the Universe. 

These are always being checked and re-verified under #1 above, but they
also stand as axiomatic statements of immutable facts and truths. I would
say this is the "scientific" aspect of THEOSOPHY . 

It is also possibly the "esoteric" and "occult" side of Nature (as a view
of the rules and laws of KARMA) that keep all aspects of its manifestation
and organization in place, and provide for the sensitive reaction to all
independent choices made by mind-beings. Otherwise, there would be
supreme chaos, and absolutely no reason for any kind of existence or
possible future.

Since as a philosophy THEOSOPHY includes both manifestation and
non-manifestation, I would aver that KARMA is one of the attributes of the
ABSOLUTE (Parabrahm) -- and is not a subject for speculation as we have no
means to penetrate that final "veil."

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry 
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 6:31 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: A Question for the New Year


Hello Pedro,

Interesting question. I guess it depends upon what you mean by 
Theosophy. If I understand Dallas correctly, he is saying that 
"Theosophy," "Truth" (in the absolute sense) and the "The Absolute" are 
synonymous--or at least nearly so. Does The Absolute evolve, or is it 
unchanging? 


A Theosophical leader from the Judge/Point Loma tradition, 
G. de Purucker, once pointed out that abstract motion is one of the 
aspects of the Absolute and said that even Parabraham evolves. A 
Vedantist would argue against Purucker's statement. I think the 
philosophical veracity of Purucker's statement, or lack of it, depends 
upon whether one is taking a relative or universal view. In other 
words, two seemingly contradictory statements can be equally true.

Because I'm only willing to speak from my personal understandings, 
experiences and intuitions, I'm not one to proclaim that Theosophy 
pre-existed in the mind of Parabrahm. You will have to ask Parabrahm 
about these things :-)

Since I don't have daily conversations with Parabraham, the Masters, or 
even the late Madame Blavatsky, my understanding of Theosophy must be 
much more humble. I see Theosophy as an expression of a kind of 
perennialism which demonstrates the universality of ideas among 
humankind's myths, religions, philosophies and sciences. I think this 
definition is more useful, because Theosophy then becomes something we 
can personally engage with and grow from--otherwise we are left to 
merely be wowed by and parrot writings from old books we believe to have 
been inspired. In the SD, HPB writes that even the Dhyani Chohans have 
limitations in what they are able to perceive and understand. If we are 
to accept her statement here, then, I would ask: why should we proclaim 
to be True things that even the gods she writes about do not even know? 
To do so is just another form of self delusion, or self aggrandizement, 
IMO.

--j




Pedro Oliveira wrote:

>Mauri recent speculations and Jerry Hejka-Ekins
>comments in his dialogue with Dallas have made me pose
>the following question:
>
>Can Theosophy evolve?
>
>If evolution is one of the inherent, universal laws in
>our universe, does it also apply to the Wisdom
>Tradition?
>
>A Happy New Year to all.
>
>
>Pedro 
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>






Yahoo! Groups Links