Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00139)

Nov 13

Thank you Kym:

You may be missing my point.  We do have common ground if we are
able to read the language together.  My plea is to establish a
common speech area, not to shirk explanations.  I think you know
that having watched what I offer and comment on.

I have also read Randy's posts, and I would like to see as much
sincerity in his response to me suggestions as he expects to his
many questions and objections which are based on assumptions that
are only answerable if expressed in terms of assumptions we all
can see.

I say that Theosophy has expressed in simple terms its philosophy
for all to read.  If we both do some similar reading we can use
those terms and same a lot of physical  time.  That's my only
plea.

As to understanding where you, Randy or anyone is "coming
from" -- only "those" who know their base can express that.  In
many cases I find that the objections raised are already answered
in the text that I recommend the KEY TO THEOSOPHY by Mme.
Blavatsky.  I thought I was clear enough.
Is my request so out of line?

You have a specialty in which you are familiar.  And I have mine.
We both share a language, but our vocabularies overlap in parts,
to better make exchanges we need to become familiar with our
specialized words, -- and I think it is a 2-way street.

If "they" are desirous of understanding theosophy, then why not
make use of what is already there?  What is wrong in recommending
it?

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----
> From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net]
> Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 12, 1999

Dallas wrote to Randy:

>At the risk of seeming to be abrupt, it is very difficult to try
>to rewrite all that theosophy teaches when it is possible for
>both of us to arrive at a joint understanding if you could
>familiarize yourself with the KEY TO THEOSOPHY.  It is not a
long
>read, but it would make for you a bridge of understanding as to
>what students of theosophy deal with, and why.
>
>Is this possible?  It is not that anyone refuses to answer you,
>but the terms you use and the theosophical ones are widely
>separated by the limitations of our average education, even that
>which is given at the colleges.  To bridge that gap is
>important -- have you any theosophical texts that you can refer
>to?  If I knew about those, then I wold have an easier time.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Dallas!!!!  If we cannot hold discussions
with people
who we presume are un-versed in Theosophy, then Theosophists have
NOTHING
to offer.

DTB	They are either versed or unversed -- on a 2-way street we
can see both sides. A one-sided drive omits many factors that
otherwise would help both in arriving at a clear picture.  Let's
save some time?

And most importantly, if Theosophists consider themselves more
learned than
those who do not know Theosophy, then it is the THEOSOPHIST'S
RESPONSIBILITY to re-learn the language of those who do not
understand, NOT
the reverse.  In order to be a teacher, one MUST speak the
language of the
student.  Theosophist's are not to seek "an easier time" as you
say -
Theosophists, if anybody, are required to endure a "harder" time.

DTB	Argument understood, but I don't think it is applicable.  My
point is that it is difficult to explain trigonometry to one who
is not pretty well versed in mathematics -- now if we find we
both have a similar familiarity with a good part of the
mathematical study needed, we can both save time in our work.

By the way, I am not saying that Dallas is the teacher and Randy
is the
student here - I am just trying to show that the more one claims
to know,
the more responsible one becomes in "bridging the communication
gap."

It is YOUR responsibility, by your own presentation of yourself,
Dallas, to
bridge the communication gap.

DTB	Well I thought I was doing that, and the suggestions was one
we could both live with.  Do you recall Pythagoras' School and
its rules?  In those days where there was an equal search for
knowledge and wisdom those who approached that School were asked
to listen for a period and become familiar with the teachings.
Today we have writing and books to help bridge that kind of gap
in idea exchange.  Why not use it?

Case in point:  Jesus came DOWN, humanity did not go up.  There
is a lesson
in that.

(odd, I do not even believe in the historical Jesus, but he sure
comes in
handy example-wise)

Kym

---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=3Dtheos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net