Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00036)

Nov 4th

Dear Katinka:

If anyone desires to confute Theosophy it is wise to offer more
than opinions or sentiments.

As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental.

Like Nature which we all live in it speaks of "principles" which
anyone can verify, after testing.

In that Science resembles it, But Theosophy covers a far wider
horizon than any one of the mane departments of analytical
science does.

I do not try to be dogmatic, but only to present for
consideration that which THEOSOPHY offers us to look into -- a
"point of view."

How anyone may receive such contributions is their affair, as is
their opinion.  After all, this is a Theosophical discussion
group?  HPB (as well as anyone else) might as well be given her
chance to speak as well as anyone else can -- if someone cars to
quote them exactly to demonstrate a point of importance.

Let us then consider :  -- what are the points, if any, of
philosophical difference?

There is difference to be sensed between "belief" and "faith."
Perhaps "belief" is very rigid and dogmatic."  Whereas "faith" is
constantly renewed and adjusted through questioning.  One is
static and the other is dynamic.  The first indicates a closed
mind, the second indicates an open mind seeking for the Truth of
things.

Best wishes,

Dallas

dalval@nwc.net=A0

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

-----Original Message-----
> From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl]
> Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 4:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism

Dallas TenBroeck"
<dalval@nwc.net> wrote:

> When questions arise that relate to Theosophy I try to put what
I
> have learned from her teachings before those who question.

Yes, I know, but when instead of answering a question you
asume that someone has read or should imediately read the
Key to Theosophy, it just does not always fall right. There
are so many books and we cannot judge whether or not Randy
is served best by reading the Key to Theosophy, or if not.
You tend to come across a bit more dogmatically than is
usually pleasant.

> If one desires to know what Theosophy has to say, they do not
> need the filters of others' views -- which admittedly seem to
> satisfy their selectivity.  That cannot be helped, or altered.

But those filters are also simply our tries at
understanding. Very often it is easier to turn to the
explanations of people who can respond to exactly the
question, than it is to read all of Blavatsky hoping that
the answer is in there somewhere. Though I do agree that on
many questions she give important stimulation for thought,
I am always the first to know and acknowledge (spelling?)
that different books are best for different people.

Katinka

----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl