Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00203)

As usual when I get along in a discussion here I soon lose focus of what is
even in disagreement.  You have imputed to me many things which are untrue,
and you feel I have done the same.  Back to befinnings.  I do not presume the
following could provide any value other than to give a humorous view into an
infantile mind.  So for your further entertainment:

1.  A person has questions about origins, destiny, the nature of reality,
etc.  Needs no proof.
2.  It is reasoned that there must be a truth, one truth.  Why?  It is
logical, fits experience, accounts for the universal order we can see.

All okay so far by me.  These thoughts are also something anybody(even I)
could arrive at without any training whatsoever.  Very straight forward,
linear, simple(sorry I like these "western" qualities) and necessary as a
foundation for any subsequent discussion meant to get anywhere(sorry, I like
the prospect of real results I might be able to use for self-edification and
to help improve the human condition).

Continuing.  Now it gets hard.
3.  Since reason has led me to this point, why not use it to determine what
the universal truth is?  By reason I mean logic, direct experience, trust and
faith in the experience of credible others, experimental results, practical
utility(there's that abhorent western thing again, I just can't hold it
back), intuition, etc.  These are all good tools.  But the results gleaned by
one should fit the others according to the rule of universal truth.
4.  Now just get to it.  Assemble the truths and see what they say.  Maybe
this will not get too far but it is a safe way to go and will prevent wasting
a lot of time on detours(which most of the thousands of religious beliefs
are).

In the alternative to #3, one could go to school under any number of masters,
 Tammy Faye Baker,  Jesus(Although who really knows what he even said  Never
mind that though, learn the language of christology and show some respect for
the clergy masters, right?),  Jerry Falwell,  Confucious, HPB(oops--covers
head defensively to ward off blows) etc.  We could trust in the great
intellect of these masters, learn the vocabulary they invent,  not question
their foundations, not apply reason(too western), just follow, that's the
essential key here.

You seem to be advocating this later alternative(although I'm sure you would
deny you are a follower, that's what your argument distills to) if I
understand you correctly with my limited linear western mind.  You also seem
to be using the tools used by religion through the ages to justify their
beliefs, e.g.,  You're an idiot compared to the leaders;  don't ask silly
proof questions cause even physicists, dealing with chaos, indeterminacy,
quarks with their sticky gluons, etas, muons, taus, don't even understand
reality(though I must insert they are seeking answers by means of reason, and
it is reason that got them to where they are-or if not is at least tested by
it-and much of the reality they discover, though not vector or scalar at this
point, is believed reducible to the logic of math.  For example the eta
particle was "discovered" by the use of quantum math, a system of logic.);
pay the dues of studying a new discipline with all its attendent vocabulary
and presuppositions and then you will "see"(reminds me of
brainwashing--that's an eastern thing isn't it?).

If theosophy, like any other useful system of thought, has anything of value
to say, the  essential  elements must be able to be clearly articulated with
common language and the proofs made obvious.  My feeling is that if you are
saying that theosophy cannot do this then I am saying it has nothing of value
to offer other than mental calisthenics.

I find it of interest that we are engaged in this debate using common
language, attempts at reason while sitting in homes made with the  logic of
engineering, resting on chairs utilizing the reason of physics, tapping away
on computers based on the surety of math and information science, etc., damn
all this western linear crap.  Randy