Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00160)

> Dallas I appreciate your reply but you lost me after the first sentence.  To
> a novice in the vernacular this seems like mumbo jumbo.
>
> It appears you make a wide range of assumptions and then build a
> philosophical/religious edifice thereon.
>
> I would challenge almost every one of the assertions you pile on one another.
That is logical, this is your first contact with theosophy
and Dallas is writing like you allready know the lingo. In
fact, I thought I knew the lingo, untill Dallas sent that
post...
> I could start with the first sentence suggesting that man mirrors the
> universe.  What precisely do you mean by this and what are the proofs?  Until
> this is resolved, all else you have said is dubious.  When this is resolved,
> I will want to go on to the next sentence and ask the same questions.
Here I have two things... Do you only believe in that which
is proved? Do you only think about that which is proved?
Because, you may know that in science very little is
proved. The laws of Newton are prooved false only by very
small deviations of the paths of the planets around the
sun.. only there does Einstein's relativity come in (I know
I am making simple here, I am just giving an example, do
not need scientific lecture)... So, if we start with proof,
we can believe nothing, or almost nothing, and you might as
well quite this list... (and quite speculating at the same
time).
Then, of course their might be evidence that human (man or
woman) is the microcosm, but I have not heard of it. When I
first heard about that, it just clicked. The way I
understand it is that for instance physically: we are made
of the same substance as the rest of the universe. Then
also: the universe is made of the same stuff as we are
made:
a physical *body*,
an astral *body*,
something like our emotional selves,
their is intelligence in the universe, and our intelligence
is derived from that,
their is spirituality in the universe, which linkes my
personal spirituality with the spirituality of the rest of
mankind and eventually with that of the whole universe.

For me, these are axioms, proved by my personal
instinct/intuition, whichever you prefer.

> If theosophy is based on the belief that there is one all pervading truth, it
> seems that any discussion based upon it should have as its first objective
> reaching agreement on what aspects of this universal truth are known.  If
> agreement cannot be reached at this foundation level, then all further
> discussion is babble.
Well, discussion is babble anyhow. Thinking and coming to
conclusions is your own business, we are only here to give
you food for thought (or that is my opinion of the
situation on this list).
Of course, by the same reasoning: you are here to give us
food for thought.

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