Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00433)

At 09:59 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis, in the material below, you keep responding as if I wrote the
>material.
>
>I did NOT write what you are responding to.  It was Rich (I believe).
>Rich, the one you have filtered out!
>
>Daniel

Well, I'm terribly sorry to have responded to someone's words when they
didn't utter them even if the resulting conversation was quite peaceful. I
seem to have a great deal of difficulty "keeping up with the karats>>>>" and
ascertaining (sometimes) just who it is that is speaking. So far though I
haven't answered myself. I guess what I did was assume as "Daniel posted it,
so it's Daniel speaking". I have also one small question. If Daniel posted
it, is it not indicative of a kind of statement on your ba half, or at least
support for the statement you are posting? If so, answering you might be the
best way to go when one hasn't the vaguest idea who one is responding to.
I'd feel kind of odd addressing comments to "To Whom It May Concern:". Now I
must say that if it was Richard Taylor who posted that message, then it is
obvious we can have "discussion without bloodshed", so that I at least, will
obviously have to re-think my position on "filtration". I'll have a clearer
picture when I see the actual response to the message from whoever it was I
responded to.

alexis d.
>
>
>
>
>>At 10:53 AM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<
>>>>
>>>>Yes, to me it is also a fact.  But surely Eldon is right in pointing out
that
>>>>this "fact" is one of the "doctrines" of Theosophy, one doctrine among many
>>>>others.
>>>>
>>>>It *is* curious to me why some people are so ready to accept this "doctrine"
>>>>as a fact with no qualms, but reject other doctrines as "dogma."
>>>>
>>>>I'm not baiting for a fight, I'm genuinely curious.
>>
>>I think Daniel, that what has happened, over time, and it's hardly
>>restricted to theosophy, is that the line that exists in people's definition
>>of "Doctrine" is that it has insensibly merged to a great degree with many
>>people's definition of "Dogma". This is a philological and semantic problem
>>and not nearly so much a philosophical one. Much of the "blame" for this
>>lies in the Religious community which has long confused "doctrine' and
>>"Dogma". When mainstream Christianity, islam, and Judaism confuse the two
>>how can ordinary people be blamed for the same confusion. I think we'd all
>>be on far firmer ground if we'd replace "Doctrine" with "basic philosophy",
>>or "basic belief", and leave dogma where it belongs, and that's totally alone.
>>
>>>>Also, JRC writes,
>>>>
>>>>>  It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it
>>>>> was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation
>>>>> in human civilization they considered the single most important mission
>>>>> for the Theosophical Society.
>>>>
>>>>But John -- I agree with you that it is a spiritual truth.  This is the
>>>>definition of "doctrine," at least among the community of believers in that
>>>>tradition.  I also firmly feel that "karma" is not a theory, it's a FACT.
>>>> But others see it as a hypothesis, and others are quite sure karma is NOT a
>>>>fact.  All could agree it is a Theosophical doctrine, whether or not they
>>>>accept it.
>>
>>I have two comments/questions here. One: It seems to me that
>>"Brother-Sisterhood" is hardly an "intrinsic Spiritual truth", because if it
>>were it would be a fact and not simply a dim hope and primary eventual goal.
>>A "Spiritual truth", and I am far from sure that any such thing actually
>>exists, would, if it did exist, be something both unavoidable and clearly
>>extant. We all know that such is very far from true regarding
>>"Brother-Sisterhood" as is proved daily in Bosnia, Palestine, Northern
>>Ireland, and here in the USA. I have always thought the basic Theosophical
>>Agenda" was to create a NUCLEUS FOR "BROTHER-SISTERHOOD,  a seed, as it
>>were, out of which real "Brother-Sisterhood" could germinate.
>>
>>
>>>>I also agree with you that it is no accident universal brotherhood is the
>>>>FIRST Object, the single most important idea in Theosophy, and the one that
>>>>the Adepts would have staked Their lives on.
>>
>>Daniel: That's a poor analogy. Adepts cannot "stake their lives" they're
>>consciously immortal. Not physically so, but in consciousness.
>>>>
>>>>But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected
>>>>by many.  The KKK are not alone in this.
>>
>>Brother-sisterhood is a principle which is rejected by most humans because
>>while they admit intellectually that it's a "good idea" they just don't
>>relate to it. And it is THAT that the Nucleus of Brother-sisterhood" was
>>intended to slowly change.
>>>>
>>>>Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other
>>>>"doctrines" are "dogma"?
>>
>>I think here you have either a misstatement or a misunderstanding. I don't
>>think too many people feel theosophy has any Dogmas at all. What I think
>>some people are complaining about (and I am clearly one of them) is that
>>there are those who TREAT basic theosophical philosophy as if it were Dogma.
>>There's a very big difference.
>>>>
>>>>All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the
>>>>emphasis placed.
>>
>>And that is clearly a matter of opinion.
>>
>>alexis d.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>