Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00145)

At 02:21 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<
>Personally I find the SD and more so GdeP, who I understand better, to be the
>catalyst for my intuition. I read the words they use only so as to intuit
>what meanings lie behind them. This means that my understanding is always
>changing because as this happens, my intuition picks up more of what the
>hidden ideas might be saying. I believe that there is so much more the the
>universe than we can hope to understand at the moment so the path should be
>an ever growing one and we all use our individual methods to travel this
>path. Mine at the moment is the source literature and the gleaning of inner
>meaning that HPB was pointing to. I think the SD is only a pointer to the
>greater reality and words are poor substitute for the experience of that
>inner reality which you no doubt are well aware off. So you get your
>experience in a different way to the way I go about it. I find it very
>difficult to voice what I intuitively understand from reading these books but
>it has its effect in the way I see life and the way I relate to it.

'A POINTER TO THE GREATER REALITY".....now that is a wonderful sentence, I
wish I had thought of it, because it describes exactly what I feel the
Secret Doctrine to be. I have always felt that the "details" given in the
S.D. were not nearly as important as were the books primary function and
that is and was as a "clue" or "hint" to the intuition to help it deal with
the totally abstract nature of the greater reality.
Where science, especially the most modern Quantam Theory type of science has
helped is in the arena of demolishing all totally materialistic models of
reality which was something H.P.B. attempted but could not succeed in doing
because she lacked the "cachet" of tokay's multi-degreed scientists who are
saying essentially the same thing. Stephen Hawking has said that whether
they like it or not the latest work, which is a cooperative effort between
humans and Cray supercomputers is giving them a model of the Universe that
is too close to the Rg.Veda for comfort.
"We get awfully near the "G" word", he says.

>>

>
>I am not sure that uncertainty does not stem from our own lack of knowledge
>of the forces at work in the Universe. There may be more certainty than we
>realise except for the continual growth factor in all things but all things
>may grow in certain directions mainly, when viewed in a long term sense. I
>really don't know so I will have to leave that in the too hard tray.

But of course the "uncertainty" stems from lack of knowledge, after all
"uncertain" is a synonym for "don't really know". The thing that's good
about it is that it represents a new thing for scientists, they can openly
admit to not knowing something, and that is a "great leap forward".
The primary thing I have always objected to about religion (and about those
who treat theosophy in a religious fashion) is that they are too certain by
far. They claim knowledge when only hypothesis exists. Religionists keep
saying they "know" and I keep saying "No, you don't know, you'd only like to
believe". As you know it gets me into a lot of trouble. But science has come
to a very important place, they know feel they "know" that the only reality
of all things is energy and they also have experienced through
experimentation that the "energy" is not nearly as simple a thing as they
once thought, and that it exhibits many really strange propensities. That
is, indeed, a giant leap, in the direction to which metaphysical
philosophers (like H.P.B.) have been "pointing" FOR MILLENNIA.


>>
>> alexis d.
>
>--
>
>
>
>   Bee Brown
>   Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch.
>   Theos Int & L
>
>
>