Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00810)

At 04:09 AM 6/24/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>At 12:11 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>>How does reading "Core Doctrines" allow someone else to do their growing for
>>them?  If it weren't for the "Core Doctrines" of mathematics I would think
>>you'd have a problem doing simple mathematics.  I have the feeling you
>>wouldn't have figured it out on your own <wink>  That's how each generation
>>evolves, they learn from the one before them, many times through books.
>
>Of course those words weren't directed to you, they were in a message to
>someone else. If you chose to take them personally then it's strictly your
>problem because they weren't directed to you. Now let's get one thing
>straight. When I use the words "Core Doctrines" I am using them in the sense
>that people like John Algeo do, and that refers to a body of unquestionable
>doctrines that one must accept or be considered something other than a
>Theosophist. What I am protesting is a body of Doctrines that are being
>given the force of Dogma. As to figuring "simple mathematics" on my
>own..wanna bet? I was reading when I was three.
>>

There was no indication as to who your words were directed at.  I didn't
take them personally, though I did chose to respond to them.  They do have
the force of dogma.  Go to any bookstore and if they have a Theosophy
section (many occult bookstores do) Blavatsky, Leadbeater, and Besant are
there.  In their books you see, "There is no religion higher than truth."
You open up the books and see all kinds of information written on the
various bodies of man, Karma, reincarnation, the Devachan plane, etc, etc.
The reader assumes that that's the truth that Theosophists are talking about.

As far as learning mathematics on your own, that's fine.  But that wasn't
exactly my point.  I meant that we as people try to build on what previous
generations have taught.  In order to do that, we first learn what it is
they discovered.  If mathematics is an example that doesn't relate to you,
there are many others to chose from to serve my example.  What are society
is knowledgable about didn't develop in one generation.  There were many
generations of genius who developed what we take for granted today.  That
was my point.

>>For someone who is ascending through the process of enlightenment so
>>successfully, you seem to be stumbling a bit by making the sarcastic and
>>snide comments to those who don't hold your point of view.  You seem to have
>>a problem with reading what people write, that must be why you misread, or
>>don't read, what I say and respond anway <grin,jab,jab>.
>
>Sarcasm sometimes relieves one of the responsibility of being actively
>hostile. As to you chris, no I respond to what you say, but I man NOT
>respond to what you may have MEANT to say. That is why when your trying to
>talk to me, absolute (there's that word again)precision in language is
>required. I will respond to say, I refuse to attempt to ascertain what you
>meant to say if the two things differ.
>>

I'm sorry that you don't take the time to try and understand what I was
saying.  There are other people who have valid and interesting opinions that
are not your own.  Sometime you might want to try understanding them.  If
you don't understand the first time around, most people will work with you
until you do understand what the original intent was.  Words are not the end
all to understanding.  I'm sure you've discovered this being the historical
theosophist you are.  As you've told me, the words aren't the only important
aspect, the context in which they were written is also important.

>>At 01:55 PM 6/22/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>>>How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
>>>supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
>>>Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.
>>
>>Don't be offended if I don't "prostrate" myself before you in the near
>>future ;-)
>>
>>Chris
> Once again I'll insert myself before the commercial. I have to assume that
>your last comment was intended to be humorous and I will accept it as such.
>Otherwise, I really don't understand it's motivation or inspiration.
>
>alexis dolgorukii

It was meant to be humorious :)

Sincerely,
Chris Allen