Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00427)

Richard writes concerning attempts to refute reincarnation:

sharp intellects" trying to refute theosophically based knowledge.  We
could, I suppose, try to argue in the manner of Boris de Zirkoff that
theosophical doctrines can be shown to be valid because of "coherence of
thought, logical interrelatedness, appeal to both reason and intuition,
application in both great and small ways, and practical value in relation to
others," etc.

However, except for the ~intuition~, such an approach, in my opinion, is
doomed.  I concur with Keith that sooner or later we just have to flat-out
state that theosophical teachings have to be approached in a theosophical
manner--i.e., that transcendental, mystical, intuitive, or higher perceptive
personal developments must be relied upon to produce some degree of inner
certainty about the teachings.


Keith:

I think the word "doctrine" was well chosen for the SD.  The SD represents a
continuing evolution of the ancient wisdom as restated by HPB.  She did not
intend it to be a dogma, but perhaps more a hypothesis that could be
experimented, tested, replicated in the experience of the reader, and
practically used for advancement and growth of the individual and society.

Ken Wilber is stating a great length in his works that their  is concept of
holarchy.  Each succesive level from physical, to emotional, to mental and
spiritual implies that the lower levels support the higher, but the higher
levels are not contained in the lower but depend on them. Thus you cannot prove
Buddhism by looking to sub-atomic physics exactly though there may be some very
important analogies.  

You cannot get to the trans-rational unity from a rational, analytical, logical
process - though these tools are the vary thing that show the futility of the
attempt.  

At some point, one must adopt a practice and seek a spiritual teacher and give
up stretching a wordy serpent that is eating its tail anyway. He has chosen Adi
Da as his spiritual teacher which I found difficult to accept at first but if it
works for him, so what?  Adi Da had the idea of asking:  "avoiding
relationship?" constantly.  The question is not "am I avoiding relationship?"
because there is an attempt not to create a separate ego that is working on
itself in the form of seeing itself as defective, separate and "other" apart
from an a priori  primal unity bliss which he calls the Bright.   This is kind
of  the idea of the koan as used in Zen, to bypass the intellect, by bursting
through to a higher level of unitive enlightenment which sees the material
everyday reality as transparent to ultimate spirit.

By avoiding relationship to the all, I sabotage my own freedom and happiness in
the form of maintaining a neurotic ego defense  that my local drives, ambitions
and desires use to perpetuate their own frustration, because the ego can only
want, it cannot just be full as it fears death from giving up its own dualisms.

Thus theosophy and core teachings must be incarnated in our very being by daily
experimentation and practice.  I am only beginning this.  Maybe others are
talking about there long years of practice and the fruits they have gained
thereby.   Thus theosophy has a real value in its ability  to transform the
individual.  Theosophy is not a historical movement or dependent on a person but
is evolution of mind itself.  Any attempt to frustrate the cosmic urge will be
met with a new impetus at some point, by individuals eager to regain a
willingness to evolve out of old "cores" into new "life".  Krishnamurti  perhaps
too radically overturned the idea changers in the theosophical temples by
declaring truth is a pathless land.  His latter contributions seem somewhat
shrill, abrasive and unloving in a peculiar sort of way, as if he were
disappointed that the goal cannot be achieved from a cookbook sort of approach.
Like  some reformed hedonists, he seemed to focus on the problem of not doing
"something old"  rather than the solution of really doing something new,  from
my limited exposure.  Ken Wilber too presents the problem in great detail, but
seems to resort to portents of a coming  world-something  to justify the sound
and fury.  This is almost like the Christian mission of becoming like Christ
until He returns.  It is a sort of unfullfilled expectation - an anti-climax.

How many have seen  theosophy incarnated as opposed to discussed?  What would it
look like?  Would it result in a kind of Eastern puritanism in Western clothes.
This has been my experience tosome degree althought I am not sure I can do much
better.

Namaste
Keith Price