Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00308)

Kim writes:

  Buy the way I certainly do not feel a need to be consistent with CWL - I
>would like to show the overall system of the approximately similar
>philosophies of AB, CWL, and AAB to be consistent with HPB. If it is not
>prooved here I would still advocate students to take this position.
>
>
Daniel replies:

I have been following this discussion and I thought the main intent was to
look at
what HPB/CWL says on these subjects.  This is quite a job in itself.  But
now it seems that
you want to widen the discussion even more!!!

Kim writes:

>   How can somebody like us be neutral on the question of esoteric
>philosophy? It is not like researching subjects where one can hold back an
>opinion untill all facts are evaluated. In esoteric philosophy it is
>necessary to accept the preliminary propositions for the time being. If
>this is not done no progress will be done in this direction whatsoever. I
>have carried definite ideas in my mind for over a decade on these subjects
>and would rather undergo surgery than extract these forms from my thoughts.
>   Neither of us are really neutral, but CWL is sort of neutral ground :-)


Daniel replies:

You mean to say that you cannot try to step back from your own
"thought-forms" and
try to see them from a different angle?  "...I...would rather undergo
surgery than extract...."


Kim writes:

>   I have spend tens of thousands of working hours on the works of HPB and
>especially the Secret Doctrine, nothing new is likely to turn up to
>surprise either of us. We can agree or disagree on our interpretation of
>the documentation and then drop it to avoid a useless yes-no argument.
>  The object - my object is to convince the readers here and plant the germ
>of reasonable doubt in your own mind.


Daniel replies:

Well, Kim, if your object is to convince readers like me, then you will have to
be more focused in what you say than what I have read in the last post or two.
You speak in very, very general terms....that's okay.  But it doesn't get
down to the nitty gritty.

Maybe you and Jerry need to severely limit what you are attempting to do.
Your discussion is
ranging all over the board.

Another point.  I am somewhat confused.  I thought the object of this
discussion was to
compare HPB to CWL on certain topics.  You say you have spent thousands of
hours on
HPB but what about CWL?  Have you read his works?  Do you have access to his
books?

It appears to me (please correct me if I am wrong) that you really know very
little about
what CWL teaches on these subjects under discussion.  So why not change the
focus to
HPB/AAB?  It is my understanding that you have studied her works in depth
and have her books, right?

Also, back to a previous point, I would hope since your object is to plant
the germ of reasonable doubt
in Jerry HE's mind, that you would also challenge your own understanding of
the subject.  I am also
hoping Jerry HE would do the same.

But unless both of you severely focus your discussion, I fear that both of
you will go round and round in
a circle.

Could you and Jerry HE maybe post a few extracts from Vol. XII of HPB's
writings on the subject under
discussion, and then each of you give your understanding of what HPB is
conveying?  This might be a
starting point then from which you two could then bring in material from CWL
or AAB.

In summary, it is my opinion that if the discussion is not limited, if terms
are not carefully defined, and if
relevant quotes from the original writers are not given, your joint efforts
will be mostly wasted.  Plus interested
readers will find themselves in a confusing fog due to the vague,
generalizing nature of the discusssion.

Hoping for the success of your joint endeavor with Jerry HE.

Daniel