Maybe it is time to go

Comment

Comment by Joe Fulton on June 29, 2009 at 12:25pm

Could this curiosity be a property of our mind which has made it easier for us to adopt to our environment? If such is the case, what are the evolutionary/"spriritual" origins of this faculty...knowing the past may give some clues to the future.

Comment by Susan Thomas on June 26, 2009 at 5:58pm

Mikhayl, the question about why we seek the truth has always been a thorn for me. I think i have shared with you before that I don't have the burden of a questioning or seeking nature. I would love for someone to really find the reason some people seek the truth.

Comment by Martin Euser on June 22, 2009 at 11:36pm

@Mikhayl Von Riebon

You are confusing Leon's posting with mine.

'i take "the light of true reason" to be a purely subjective experience, and therefore lacking in any outward proof'

That's why one needs the brain-mind to formulate the objective counterpart to the "subjective" experience.
Our best scientists work like that. Science progresses through the interplay of the "subjective insight" with objective means.

As to theosophy: that provides starting points, not as dogmas, but as principles to work with and hone.

Comment by Mikhayl Von Riebon on June 22, 2009 at 9:05pm

"The point is always that most Western philosophers don't understand a thing about Buddhi, the light of true Reason. So, they continuously err in their judgments. Plato called that level of thinking doxa. (opinion, etc.) " thank you for your comments leon, but i would hardly agree with this. firstly i take "the light of true reason" to be a purely subjective experience, and therefore lacking in any outward proof. and thats the point for me really. pure perception is beyond all discriminating qualities, and therefore detached from making any real difference in the world except for the being who attains it. so many 'enlightened beings' have come before and we cannot really say whether they have made a shred of difference or not. what is for certain is that we still suffer and we still play around with the same old questions and politics, bickering amongst ourselves. and so what does theosophy set out to do? to end man's suffering? to enlighten him? none of these things are possible save for that man's own efforts. perhaps it is a society providing the space for man to discover and rediscover his own 'truths', free from persecution. now this is something that we can provide. theosophy is not to give answers but to promote men to find their own, but i notice this becomes hindered when we have members that choose to promote blavatsky or leadbeater, not just as starting points, but as corrective tools. that if one's views dont match the views of the founders, then their views must be wrong. for me that is the fundamental difference here.

Comment by Charles Cosimano on June 22, 2009 at 8:37pm

Richard, it was your article so many years ago that got me into the TS in the first place. Talk about events going full circle!

Comment by Joe Fulton on June 22, 2009 at 8:30pm

What an excellent, thoughtful discussion!

Why have a movement at all? Good question. To answer that, let's ask a few questions.

1) How can this movement help solve (or mitigate) the significant problems in our world and in our lives?

2) What do we do well better than anyone else?

3) How are our objectives relevant today?

4) What are the alternatives?

Let's not be afraid to think outside the box on these questions.

Comment by Richard Ihle on June 22, 2009 at 7:28pm

I was prompted to join this group because of your comments, Charles. Nice job. Incidentally, I put the following "epistemological gearshift" on all my Theosophically related emails and encourage everyone interested in testable, ground-breaking THEOSOPICAL PSYCHOLOGY rather than shaky, who-really-has-seen-a-Lemurian? Theosophical anthropology do the same:

Theosophy: "Intuitive knowledge or wisdom resulting from direct experience of one's Transcendent Nature."
Microcosmic Theosophy: "Practical application of intuitive knowledge or wisdom at the human level, especially psychological insights and tools for the transformation of ordinary life into extraordinary life."

Godward,

R.

Comment by Martin Euser on June 22, 2009 at 4:32pm

@Mikhayl
"To continue the trail of thought, and some of the questions already previously asked on the site... why have a TS at all? if we are pursuing truth, then why?"

The traditional true-false dichotomy in logic seems a bit outdated to me. There are also multivalent logics, fuzzy logic, etc. I would rather say pursue understanding or insight into the essence of things. This is not a thing of the brain-mind but of intuition, or buddhi.

"do we seek 'truth' for power? security? pleasure? perhaps there is some 'higher' purpose or drive that pushes us towards the idea of truth. what is this drive?"

Evolution of the spirit, I'd say.

" what authority do we have to determine what is truth in the first place?"

No outer authority, but inner authority: the clear awareness of buddhic perception.
Once you experience clear consciousness, you know it is from within and you know that it is as it is.
You know the essence of a situation because your psyche has become one with it.
Not something that occurs daily..


" do we feel that there are core truths that all men should abide by in order to live happily?
Noone lives happily all the time - this is impossible in real life. The pairs of opposites always work, one can learn to be not overwhelmed by them. Core truths? I think so, as "laws" or patterns manifesting through the divine worlds. The seven "jewels" of wisdom can certainly be considered core truths as far as we understand these.
It is not the end of wisdom, of course. Always more to discover.


" how do we define or identify what these core truths are?"
See above reply.

"(coincidentally) looking into Humanism vs post structuralism, i seem to notice that the Grand narratives that the TS was setup on in the first place are now under scrutiny. our purpose is no longer felt as valid, and without that we have no reason to continue on. any one else have any comments?"

Post-modernism is already on its return, I believe. It will destroy itself. Extreme relativism such as "all is but relative", means that such "philosophies" as post-modernism are but relative too. It negates itself. Philosophers are beginning to understand this slowly, I believe.

The point is always that most Western philosophers don't understand a thing about Buddhi, the light of true Reason. So, they continuously err in their judgments. Plato called that level of thinking doxa. (opinion, etc.)

Comment by K. Paul Johnson on June 21, 2009 at 9:30pm

The 2009 convention of the Church of Light ended today, and afterwards seventeen of us gathered for dinner at the CofL headquarters, a modest stucco bungalow that is more than enough to serve our purposes. Then half of the dinner group returned to the hotel for a round of margaritas and further conversation. I'm writing about it immediately to convey the experience while still fresh in my memory. It is so refreshing to be with a group of members of a spiritual organization, not just members but the president and board members, and find them every bit as relaxed and open and fun as my "secular" friends. No posturing, pontificating, arguing, looking down on anyone. We got into the topic of life after death and had a spirited discussion in which everyone admitted that we don't know anything, really, yet we all learned from one another exploring alternative scenarios. By comparison, ARE and TS seem in the rear-view mirror of my memory like a bunch of blowhard know-it-alls, at least the leaders, simply incapable of the "don't know mind," the keen curiosity and frank admission of ignorance about the Meaning of It All that I find in the CofL. Not that the members are not storehouses of incredible information; they are very historically well-informed and grounded, scientifically literate, well-spoken. But everyone seems a lot more impressed by the vastness of what they don't understand than the lifetime of knowledge they have acquired. These folks are warm, welcoming, down to earth, and fun, and I wish that you all could have joined us this weekend.

The spirit of inquiry of the original TS does live on in one fragment that descends from its founders. Unfortunately, a fragment that most Theosophists have never heard of, and that is of little or no interest to those who have.

Comment by Mikhayl Von Riebon on June 21, 2009 at 9:01pm

To continue the trail of thought, and some of the questions already previously asked on the site... why have a TS at all? if we are pursuing truth, then why? do we seek 'truth' for power? security? pleasure? perhaps there is some 'higher' purpose or drive that pushes us towards the idea of truth. what is this drive? what authority do we have to determine what is truth in the first place? do we feel that there are core truths that all men should abide by in order to live happily? how do we define or identify what these core truths are? (coincidentally) looking into Humanism vs post structuralism, i seem to notice that the Grand narratives that the TS was setup on in the first place are now under scrutiny. our purpose is no longer felt as valid, and without that we have no reason to continue on. any one else have any comments?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page