Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00202)

> Ok,I think I get it.  Theosophy is a system of belief and study requiring
> years, decades, millenia to fully understand.

Actually, according the founders, this statement is exactly correct.

>Those who do finally get it
> are content to take the prize and spiritually masturbate with it in a
closet
> somewhere.

A cynical way of putting it - in fact according to them, most of them expend
the vast majority of their energies in the subtle assistance of the
evolution of the human race. And most of the race still thinks of them with
all the appreciation you show in this post ... if they are aware of them at
all.

>They have no obligation, nor feel any, to share the truths with
> the rest of humanity.

Just as you have no obligation, nor feel any, to share your knowledge of
driving with a four year old. Would it not largely be a waste of time, and
far more likely to produce injury and death than any benefit?

>They will, however, discuss truths with "initiates"
> who will without question, based on a gut feeling,  spend years learning
the
> esoterica.

As opposed to what you apparently believe ... that they should give it away,
simply because what may be an entirely temporary and fleeting mood on your
part decides to claim the right to just be given what they've spent decades
earning? This is like telling a banker they are *wrong* for lending to
people that have proven that they are persevering, and worthy of investment,
and should instead  simply give money to whomever asks for it - even if it
is on a complete whim. And if you think money is an inappropriate analogy -
think again - to these beings the wisdom they were seeking, and that some of
them found, is significantly rarer than money, far more difficult to obtain,
and worth immensely more value.

You frame this in such a way as to accuse. Yet how different is it from any
other discipline? I repeat, if you went after any Physics Ph.D with your
attitude, demanding that he or she had the "obligation" to share the results
of decades of research with whomever happened to stumble across their path
and demand it, even if that person didn't even want to bother to learn the
vocabulary necessary to have an intelligent discussion of the topics. How
very strange that people have no problem accepting that it will take at
least 6 years, considerable expense, often a life close to poverty, complete
focus and dedication (and usually a good deal of soul-searching), simply to
earn an MBA - yet when it comes to the possibility of gaining access to a
body of wisdom that claims to have knowledge of worlds that our limitations
currently prevent us from seeing, that may offer to expose some of the
fundamental truths behind realtiy ... suddenly even a couple of books are
too much to be asked to read, suddenly if the person isn't given *prior*
proof of the value they want to pout, suddenly those who did the work and
achieved the knowledge ought to, in your mind, feel a duty to answer you,
simply because you've decided you're curious, and oh yes, they should also
answer on your terms, and give you proofs that you can understand.

Guess what ... trained neurosurgeons, physicists, philosophers, chemists,
researchers and scientists of every shape and color ... (gasp) actually
believe *they too* have the right to discuss the results of *their* efforts
only with those they choose, and actually also have the gall to believe that
their "initiates" ought to spend years learning the esoterica of * their*
fields prior to even having those discussions. Go to an Ivy League school,
and you might even go through your first 2 or 3 years before you even sat in
a *class* with a full professor ... they spend their time on research, on
applications, and when they teach - it is mostly to graduate level students.
But then, perhaps you actually believe that all of *them* have a duty to
answer anyone that decides they are "obligated". That Ph.D's are terribly
arrogant to withhold their knowledge, but instead should spend piles of time
with everyone that demands their wisdom ... even a casual drunk that
wandered in off the street ... and in fact would have a lot of gall to even
suggest that the person should read the literature of the field for a couple
years.

>A prerequisit however is that the pupil not have any of that
> nasty western mentality of expecting reason, proof, evidence or the like.
> No, don't raise any questions about the foundations of the beliefs, or
> where-after spending millenia in study-you may be led, just dive in.  Ya
> gotta have faith brother.

This is exactly correct. But your choice to define it in the terms you do
means you don't understand what you are saying. It isn't a matter of them
copping some attitude, it is, in their worldview, based on the fact that the
human constitution needs significant development before it can even begin to
formulate a context within which their "truths" will even make sense. This
isn't something determined by their whims ... it is in the nature of the
reality itself. It *doesn't* easily yield to simplistic anaylsis. The mind,
and its treasured "reason", are serfs envisioning themselves to be kings
simply because they've managed to "prove" things - within very limited
reference frames - and build a few clever toys. They are *not*, however,
according to the Thoesophical Adepts, adequate tools to mount a search for
larger truths. In fact, they are often the very source of the illusions that
*prevent* people from finding those very truths, and recognizing them when
they stumble across them..

> I was led to theosophy because its central theme is that there is one
> universal truth.

Actually, that is *your statement* of its central theme. Read even a few of
the books, and you'll expand that central theme to read: "There *is* one
body of wisdom on this planet, a single core understanding of what reality
is - this body of wisdom is immense, is at the root of most major religions
and philosophies on earth, and has been around for millenia ...
additionally, the current state of humanity is such that the average
individual doesn't have anywhere close to the physical, emotional,
intellectual, or spiritual refinement and development to approach it. A four
year old simply can't understand career planning. S/he has neither the
concepts, the words, nor the experience in the business world necessary for
it to even begin to make sense. However, Theosophy *does* hold that it is
possible, if one wants to do a great deal of very focussed work, to achieve
a state of development in which the approach to that wisdom becomes
possible. But until that inner development is pursued, it just isn't
possible, because the tools necessary to approach it just don't exist.

>Any claim of truth(or segments thereof) puts the onus on
> the advocates to do the provings.

And anyone claiming the right to such truth puts the onus on *themself* to
prove themselves qualified to understand it. I repeat - the attitude of the
adepts always was that this was just offered - and they fully expected the
attitude of the majority of the western world to be precisely what yours
is - and their basic response to it wasn't to say "ok, we desperately want
our truths to be proven, to be validated, we'll meet your terms", but
rather, "You clearly haven't met *our* terms. We wish you well. Goodbye."
Just as with a doctor, or a physicist, *they* might have a wisdom *you*
wanted, but *you* have nothing *they* want. Yet you continually act as
though they ought to feel some obligation to *you*. They don't.

>Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be
> looking for some substance, not just vocabulary.

*No* philosophy cares what seems reasonable to you. And to even begin to
explain the substance requires the vocabulary.

> If all this rubs anyone the wrong way, just ignore my questions and I'll
> eventually go away.  I'm sticking around though til I'm sure that I've
> exhausted all I can reasonably do to find out what gems of truth may
reside
> here.  Randy

And I'll keep writing ... if for nothing else than to see what further
medival tortures you can work into your subject lines. Believe it or not,
compared to those adepts, I'm really really *nice*. Read the Mahatma Letters
(by Sinnet) - letters (allegedly) from two or three of those adepts. And
believe it or not, I'm bothering to write (they certainly wouldn't) you
because I *do* think Theosophy has immense value, think you have a chance of
getting interested enough in it to do enough work to tap some of that value,
and - its shown me a few things about the "western mentality".

Were I to speak with (for instance) many devotional folks in India in this
same tone of voice, as even the lowly gatekeeper at a guru's ashram ... many
of them would bow their heads in shame and humbly leave in a minute ...
taking it as a sign that their path lay elsewhere. But when dealing with the
full bore arrogance of the supposedly "objective" western mind, petulant
little child-king that it is, the surest way to engage it, the approach most
likely to get it to seek at least a little deeper into a philosophy, is, in
fact, to make fun of it, to tease it, tell it it is worth very little (in
many ways a truth) - tell it it can't possibly understand something. In
short, work as hard as possible to try to get it to leave. Almost against
its own will it will clamp onto that philosophy like a mongoose on a cobra's
neck. (If you think I'm in error here ... look at the selected parts of my
post that you responded to ... that your mind immediately jumped at ... look
how it *reacted* to them ... how it lead you to respond ... and you think
*that* half-unconscious, undisciplined tool is the one capable of grasping
transcendent *truths*? The thing Theosphy ought to work to *satisfy* before
you give it the great gift of your attention?)

Toodles, -JRC