Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00301)

================== 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]