Hi all.

I met Nick at the recent Theosophical Conference in Julien and was interested in this site which brings together the various sects of Theosophy. I thought the idea of this forum made tons of sense, especially because the theosophical pledge I hear most often says that the true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, but to each and all. I think a forum like this is great for the premotion of brotherhood.

I am a forum Junkie, just so you all know. I am a member at tons, though I only sporadically post at some.

Other than that I am 19 years old. I went to the ULT in Santa Barbara since I was a kid. I grew up on the Seva Navas Commune with a bunch of other kids, including three brothers and a sister.

I've changed my name too many times, but for the moment I go by Aiden. But in case you knew me back when (and I have a habit of running into people who knew me or my parents back when at Theosophical gatherings) I was originally named Dawn and have called myself Usha.

But, forget all that, now I am Aiden.

I have a lot of respect for Theosophy, although I probably identify less as a Theosophist myself at the moment. I'm searching and I don't know what I'll find at the end of the Rainbow.

Hi, Aiden, and welcome to the Forum.

I am glad you enjoyed the Julian Conference. I will be posting more on the conference soon, but I have to go for simulator training next week (I am an airline pilot) so I have to put Theosophy on the back burner for the next week or so.

"I'm searching and I don't know what I'll find at the end of the Rainbow."

--> I wish you well on your search for the best way to get on the Path. I spent many years trying to figure out what works for me. (I was even a Baha'i for a while....) Then, one day Boom! I found exactly what I was working for. I hope that you find what you are looking for. Hang in there, keep looking, and do not let anyone talk you out of what works for you.

Regarding Theosophy, Theosophy is all about concepts. Please tell us which Theosophical concepts you like, and which ones you do not like.

Sorry about the Thesis paper. I guess I've just been mulling over this for a long time. Yikes.

Reincarnation and karma I can comprehend. Together they make sense for me. It’s like a really balanced equation. While there is little proof, there is also nothing to prove it wrong. The same when it comes to God. When it comes to Mahatma's or Adepts and an unbroken chain of knowledge being released to humanity as we become ready; Earth cycles and moon cycles, the cycles of the races, the rise and fall of Atlantis, psychic powers, the works… those are the parts I find hard to believe. In many ways they are too complicated, unneeded concepts. Not elegant enough. I believe that knowledge grows and nobody has all the answers. Yes, sometimes it is lost and found, but for the most part, it is discovered, not recovered. It bugs me when I talk about science with my parents and sometimes it disagrees with stuff in the Secret Doctrine, and my parents seems to think its just because the scientists are behind the times and playing catch up. What if it’s the other way around?

It’s kind of like how I go back and forth between believing in God. Everyone has different interpretations of God, but typically when I believe in God, I believe that there is an upward spiral. Humans, matter, everything is evolving toward... I don't know, Atman, Nirvana, whatever you want to call perfection. In that state of mind, it is easy for me to believe we are all gods, or potential gods.

When I don't believe in God, I believe the universe is just that, and explosion of matter and energy into space that just happens to have a planet called Earth where molecules happened to form cells and cells formed plants and animals and animals formed brains and brains became complicated so that consciousness arose and so on, as it probably happens on other planets all over the universe. No plan, no journey, just whatever life makes of life. And religion, philosophy and science are all just ways we humans try to rationalize a universe that doesn’t have a reason.

Or, maybe the Gaia theory makes more sense. All things on Earth are extentions of the living breathing being called by us Earth, the same way Mitochondria exist independantly of, and yet central to our cells. And perhaps the Earth is part of the macrocosmic being called the solar system, the solar system part of the body of the galexy, and the galexy but one of the neurons of the Universe.

There were some shirts being sold at the Theosophical conference. Something about “Theosophy answers the great questions of life; who we are and why we are here.” That’s totally paraphrasing because I can’t remember exactly what it said. It was a lot longer than that. I didn’t like that shirt. I would of have phrased it, “Theosophy _questions_ the great questions of life; who we are and why we are here.”

I like Theosophy because it does not neglect science when talking about religion. It does not neglect ethics when talking about science. And when putting forth religious ideas, it challenges us to embrace the ethics that must surely follow. This is just some of what I find key to Theosophy.

I think my favorite concept is Brotherhood. We can’t get to where we are going alone. Because where we are going is perfection, and perfection isn’t perfect unless it’s complete, which means all of us, every molecule, being in the universe. Reincarnation, Karma (Law), and Brotherhood.

Welcome Aiden, glad to have you here.

Just wonder why you have trouble believing in Adepts? There are no required beliefs in Theosophy, but since you have no trouble with karma & rebirth, I wonder.

If intellectual geniuses like Einstein or musical geniuses like Mozart can be explained by many previous rebirths when they focused on and perfected one aspect of their character, why not apply the same notion to Adepts? They perfected the spiritual aspects of themselves.

Funny, my dad just asked me the same question.

More than karma and reincarnation, the whole concept of spiritual evolution is necessary to believe in Adepts. I'm not saying I don't believe in Adepts, or spiritual evolution. More, I have trouble with the idea that there is a Truth, capization included. Or even, there may be a Truth, but Christianity claims to have the Truth, Islam claims so as well. So does the Bahai faith (or so I've been lead to believe.) Theosophy claims to have no dogma, but all the modern movements called Theosophy have _something_ that most followers agree is a better, clearer truth than the other ones, or they wouldn't call themselves theosophists.

And then, I believe you learn more from direct experience than you do from teachers, especially when it comes to spiritual developement. What else is the endless cycles of reincarnation for, and its constant karma, if not spiritual developement?

Why complicate things Aiden? "Evolution" - spiritual or worldly (devolution), is just change, and change is just cause/effect=karma/fruit spread over much time=rebirth.

Truth is just that elephant=Theosophy; the blind men are the partial truths of the varied religions. Theosophy is big truth because its Adepts have enough sense to compare notes on their experiences and ignore what is not common to them all.

Dogma, in its modern use of the word, means an imposed or required truth or belief. Theosophists have none of that, but we do have doctrines and beliefs.

Yes, theosophists (as well as anyone else who values truth) think their truth is better or superior. But that is just the human ego transforming our real attraction & understanding into "my" truth. When truth is clung to and possessed, then "me & mine" easily becomes superior "me & mine" versus inferior "their".

But, the veil of our separative, possessive ego does not make "our" truth false, it just means we must develop an objective love for truth and its beneficent application. The love for truth and compassion for all will remove the veil.

As Blavatsky says in my sig below:

Dartxni (Aiden),

I am sorry for taking so long to respond, but I have been out of town for for my job. (I am an airline pilot, and I was flying a simulator for flight training.)

You have listed some Theosophical concepts that you have trouble with:

1) Mahatma's or Adepts

The great thing about Theosophy is that you can follow all of the teachings without believing or disbelieving in the Masters.

I can see how it would be difficult to believe in the Masters, but I do not see it as required.

2) an unbroken chain of knowledge being released to humanity as we become ready

I find it curious that you disagree with this idea. Do you find it illogical, or something that just does not fit your belief system?

3) Earth cycles and moon cycles

I do not see these concepts as key Theosophical concepts. Do you? I see these more as stages or phases. The word cycles seems to imply a repeating of things, which I am not sure happens on Earth or the Moon.

4) the cycles of the races

I have the same response — I see the movement as stages that do not repeat.

5) the rise and fall of Atlantis

Take a look at this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/yonaguni...yonaguni_4b.htm

This is a submerged society that was discovered off the coast of Japan. The idea that an entire civilization existed and was then submerged is common to Theosophical teachings. What else could explain these things?

There are also places like the lost city of Petra, Jordan:

http://www.go2petra.com/GALLERY.HTM

The idea that civilizations come and go make a lot of sense to me. Theosophy teaches us that this has been going on a lot longer than modrn historians say it has.

6) psychic powers

I believe that Theosophy's teachings are clear - that psychic abilities are something we should stay away from untill we are told that we are ready. But this does raise a question - by psychic powers, do you mean that they exist, or that we can develop them within ourselves?

You said,

"... I have trouble with the idea that there is a Truth, capization included. Or even, there may be a Truth, but Christianity claims to have the Truth, Islam claims so as well. So does the Bahai faith (or so I've been lead to believe.)"

--> You and I have the same thoughts on this topic. I certainly object when a Christian tells me that his Truth is right and mine is wrong, and that is all there is to it. Such closed-mindedness screams that such Truth is flawed, and not a Truth at all.

But the issue you are raising is real -- how can Theosophy say it is the Truth when Theosophists may have simply fallen into the same ego-centric illusion that it is when it is not?

My answer is, we must keep our minds open and be ready to challenge any idea as soon as it becomes questionable. In institutionalized religions, the ideas are not allowed to be questioned, and you will be cast out if you even try to do any questioning.

Theosophy will not cast you out if you ask questions. As a matter of fact, Theosophy actually encourages you to question everything. What other belief system can say that?!

"Theosophy claims to have no dogma, but all the modern movements called Theosophy have _something_ that most followers agree is a better, clearer truth than the other ones, or they wouldn't call themselves theosophists."

--> I once used the word "dogmatic" to describe Theosophical teachings -- and I was yelled at for doing so! A lot of it comes down to the word Dogma. Dogma has been jokingly defined as what everybody else except me believes! (For some people, that is exactly what dogma is....) However, dogma is the law of the land that says this is not allowed to be questioned. Such a rule does not exist in Theosophy.

Let's set up an example. Let's take the twin ideas of reincarnation and karma -- two ideas which are the very foundation of Theosophy. If someone got up at a meeting and said they did not believe in reincarnation and karma, there would be some snickering, and maybe some open laughter, this is true. But they would not be told that they have spoken hearesy! They would not be told they have to start believing in reincarnation and karma! Yes, Theosphy has such ideas, and, yes, they are the foundation of Theosophy, but opposition to these ideas is allowed. It is an open-minded, not closed-minded attitude which sets Theosophy apart. You do not believe in the Masters? Feel free!

I feel that, for example, Christianity tries to drag its members towards Heaven, even while the members are kicking, scratching, and resisitng all the way. You will not find this happening in Theosophy. The idea is that each and everyone of us is on a Path, and we have to walk that Path by ourselves. Now, Theosophy offers ways to speed up progress on the Path, but it only for those who listen.

Theosophy also teaches that there are different kinds of people, and so we need different kinds of religions. What works for you may not work for me. (I feel this is one of the biggest mistakes that institutionalized religions make -- demanding that one religion will work for everyone.) Theosophy gives people the freedom to put together different kinds of belief-systems, while institutionalized religions do not. Nothing is forced on anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a Theosophical approach that, if an idea is cast aside by a member, some time should be spent before the idea is raised again, if at all.

"... I believe you learn more from direct experience than you do from teachers, especially when it comes to spiritual developement."

--> I feel that learning from a teacher is faster than using the discovery method. (Psychological studies have shown that it is a lot faster.) The problem is to find a teacher that is not closed-minded, or downright goofy. I guess we will just have to wait until we are approached by a good teacher, and we will see what it is like at that time.

"What else is the endless cycles of reincarnation for, and its constant karma, if not spiritual developement...?"

--> I agree. Our spiritual development will continue. The trick is to see how to speed it up a little.

~~~

Theosophy is all about concepts. I look forward to seeing what other Theosophical concepts you agree or disagree with.

Dalai Lama on "Truth" -

Thurman: You speak about how the Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith." Coming from a late 20th-century belief that there is no Truth, only contingent truths, how are we to imagine what the Buddha meant by "truth" in contemporary terms?

Dalai Lama: Buddha was speaking about reality. Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition -- that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism.

Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so.

In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.

Thurman: Isn't that because it is dangerous for one religion to consider it has the only truth?

Dalai Lama: Yes. I always say there should be pluralism -- the concept of many religions, many truths. But we must also be careful not to become nihilistic.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1997/11/thurman.html