Why Theosophy Has to Change - Theosophy.Net2024-03-28T21:03:14Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/why-theosophy-has-to-change?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A46228&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThank you Joe.
I totally agre…tag:theosophy.net,2011-05-01:3055387:Comment:479252011-05-01T04:41:27.159ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Thank you Joe.</p>
<p>I totally agree that a re-examination of what we call rights and the attendant responsibilities is required. In fact, I requested Peter to include this in his talk show and he did. But we need a larger discussion on it in this forum. Perhaps in another thread.</p>
<p>Thank you Joe.</p>
<p>I totally agree that a re-examination of what we call rights and the attendant responsibilities is required. In fact, I requested Peter to include this in his talk show and he did. But we need a larger discussion on it in this forum. Perhaps in another thread.</p> Thanks Martin.
Like many ot…tag:theosophy.net,2011-05-01:3055387:Comment:479202011-05-01T03:25:24.872ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Thanks Martin.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like many other words, we all perceive the meaning of Knowledge in our own individual way. In the current usage of the word, it is often used interchangeably with "Information." Our scriptures abound with stories of so and so receiving knowledge from so and so, and a picture is formed in our minds that it is feasible to become knowledgeable by undertaking certain activities. It is for this reason that I quoted the sanskrit verse. Socrates fulfilled the first…</p>
<p>Thanks Martin.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like many other words, we all perceive the meaning of Knowledge in our own individual way. In the current usage of the word, it is often used interchangeably with "Information." Our scriptures abound with stories of so and so receiving knowledge from so and so, and a picture is formed in our minds that it is feasible to become knowledgeable by undertaking certain activities. It is for this reason that I quoted the sanskrit verse. Socrates fulfilled the first condition outlined by being humble and admitting that he did not know. Einstein himself said somewhere that he had picked up only a few sand grains from the beach, or something similar.</p>
<p>The Theosophical Movement gained popularity during its first fifty years because an impression was indirectly conveyed that the theosophists possessed "Knowledge". Mahatmas played their part too in this. Therefore, I agree with Susan on this that while the claimed writings of Mahatmas constitute exteremly valuable philosophical information about nature, it is difficult to classify it as "Knowledge".</p>
<p>Although I have translated the sanskrit word "Vinayam" as humility, it is only a limited meaning of the word. Sanskrit scholars around here may be in a better position to explain this, but in my opinion it also constitutes responsiblity. </p> Good point, Capt. Kumar.
Resp…tag:theosophy.net,2011-05-01:3055387:Comment:480132011-05-01T02:50:54.031ZMartin Euserhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MartinEuser
<p>Good point, Capt. Kumar.</p>
<p><br></br>Responsible use of knowledge requires insight into the nature of 'things'. Socrates said, that the only thing he knew was that he didn't knew anything. Perhaps he was modest. There may be degrees of insight. "Absolute certainty" is a thing one cannot claim.</p>
<p><br></br> <cite>Capt. Anand Kumar said:…</cite></p>
<p>Good point, Capt. Kumar.</p>
<p><br/>Responsible use of knowledge requires insight into the nature of 'things'. Socrates said, that the only thing he knew was that he didn't knew anything. Perhaps he was modest. There may be degrees of insight. "Absolute certainty" is a thing one cannot claim.</p>
<p><br/> <cite>Capt. Anand Kumar said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://theosnet.ning.com/forum/topics/why-theosophy-has-to-change?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A48010&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3055387Comment48010"><div><p>"Responsible use of Knowledge"- a very interesting concept. Should it apply to theosophists too?</p>
<p>KNOWLEDGE, if one possesses it should make him/her responsible by default. It may not be out of place to quote a sanskrit verse, perhaps from panchtantra:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Vidya dadati vinayam Knowledge (Wisdom) brings humility</p>
<p>Vinaya dyati patratam Humility confers eligibility</p>
<p>Patratwa dhanamapnoti Eligible receive wealth</p>
<p>Dhanat dharmah tatah sukham Happiness comes to those who spend this wealth as per dharma.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even those who ordered the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki & Hiroshima may have convinced themselves that they have a <em>responsibility </em>to do so.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> "Responsible use of Knowledge…tag:theosophy.net,2011-05-01:3055387:Comment:480102011-05-01T02:29:42.637ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>"Responsible use of Knowledge"- a very interesting concept. Should it apply to theosophists too?</p>
<p>KNOWLEDGE, if one possesses it should make him/her responsible by default. It may not be out of place to quote a sanskrit verse, perhaps from panchtantra:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Vidya dadati vinayam Knowledge (Wisdom) brings humility</p>
<p>Vinaya dyati patratam Humility confers eligibility</p>
<p>Patratwa dhanamapnoti Eligible receive…</p>
<p>"Responsible use of Knowledge"- a very interesting concept. Should it apply to theosophists too?</p>
<p>KNOWLEDGE, if one possesses it should make him/her responsible by default. It may not be out of place to quote a sanskrit verse, perhaps from panchtantra:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Vidya dadati vinayam Knowledge (Wisdom) brings humility</p>
<p>Vinaya dyati patratam Humility confers eligibility</p>
<p>Patratwa dhanamapnoti Eligible receive wealth</p>
<p>Dhanat dharmah tatah sukham Happiness comes to those who spend this wealth as per dharma.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even those who ordered the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki & Hiroshima may have convinced themselves that they have a <em>responsibility </em>to do so.</p> Thank you John. My thoughts…tag:theosophy.net,2011-04-30:3055387:Comment:475022011-04-30T14:59:51.331ZSusan Thomashttps://theosophy.net/profile/SusanThomas
<p>Thank you John. My thoughts are that many theosophists are in place, and that they do not recognize themselves for who they are and what they are tasked with contributing in the fields of ethics and science. We are or should be, tasked with giving direction based on what we know that scientists have not yet discovered or placed in common knowledge as far as "advancements" are concerned. My firm belief is that we must reach these people in this forum and bring ourselves together to form a…</p>
<p>Thank you John. My thoughts are that many theosophists are in place, and that they do not recognize themselves for who they are and what they are tasked with contributing in the fields of ethics and science. We are or should be, tasked with giving direction based on what we know that scientists have not yet discovered or placed in common knowledge as far as "advancements" are concerned. My firm belief is that we must reach these people in this forum and bring ourselves together to form a nucleus representing humankind as a whole, advocating for responsible use of the knowledge we have and gain. This goal is probably a few years ahead of itself (note the 18 months from the original post to any meaningful discussion.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That is the very reason that this site must not become a forum for a homogenous group of traditional theosophists debating whether or not masters exist. Our theosophical mandate, in my humble opinion is to protect our world from our lack of spiritual insight and or courage. We must find ways to communicate rational reasons for our direction to the scientific world without coming across as a bunch of woo-woos.</p>
<p>Spiritual leadership and direction does not need to be relegated to a secondary position.</p>
<p>Just my thoughts.</p>
<p>ST</p> The field(s) of Science in th…tag:theosophy.net,2011-04-29:3055387:Comment:470022011-04-29T04:37:00.241ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>The field(s) of Science in this area (Ethics) are actually huge. Scientists will not trust people with a 'Religion' in their mind. I love the example (true) where a major religious group in the USA wants to ban 'Organ Transplants' if the organ comes from a suicide victim. Allowing the use of those organs will promote suicide across the country because the suicide victims will justify their suicide (to themselves) in that 'someone' will live the happy life that the suicide victim will never…</p>
<p>The field(s) of Science in this area (Ethics) are actually huge. Scientists will not trust people with a 'Religion' in their mind. I love the example (true) where a major religious group in the USA wants to ban 'Organ Transplants' if the organ comes from a suicide victim. Allowing the use of those organs will promote suicide across the country because the suicide victims will justify their suicide (to themselves) in that 'someone' will live the happy life that the suicide victim will never have. It is 'clearly' more important to spend money trying to ban those transplants rather than give the money for medical research into depression. This is where the Scientists find that opening the door to Religions brings in more problems and less likelihood of ever creating a sensible set of guidelines. Even the word Moral is bad. Every Quack is Moral. That is the moral of religious experience by many scientists . (not all moral people are quacks, obviously). The details get even worse as each guideline is applied to an actual specific case.</p>
<p>The one group that actually has clout are the Humanitarian philosophers, or Humanists.</p>
<p>People may want to look at the site: www.<span class="title">bioethics.net</span></p>
<p><span class="title">The entire field, just in the 'bio' part of Scientific Ethics, has now become a separate Degree. A good example is the Bioethics program at Mount Sinai Hospital School of Medicine:</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.bioethics.union.edu/biorhodes-Rosamond_Rhodes_PhD_Online_Bioethics_Professor_Research_Ethics.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bioethics.union.edu/biorhodes-Rosamond_Rhodes_PhD_Online_Bioethics_Professor_Research_Ethics.htm</a></p>
<p>If you see the various journals she publishes in, you get the idea of the scope of a single subset of Science and Ethics. There is nothing that is 'static' . The entire field is as 'dynamic' as Science itself. If you find the crowd/group you want to stop and talk to, as soon as you've stopped you are way behind the crowd.</p>
<p>Someone needs to already be in place before the starting gun goes off. Otherwise, you are out of the race.</p>
<p>So, what I am really trying to say is that we need more theosophists in place, i.e. the world, before we have any probability of getting an entry into the game. I think internet presence, open doors, open minds and open hearts will be a haven from the insane business world. People will look for that. That alone is a good reason for us to be here. That is the always the critical point. It is always in the beginning of things......</p>
<p><span class="title">Peace<br/></span></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Susan Thomas said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://theosnet.ning.com/forum/topics/why-theosophy-has-to-change?id=3055387%3ATopic%3A12893&page=5#3055387Comment47339"><div><p>My vision of the way theosophy should change begins with Theosophers getting scientists on board with an ethics committee made up of people who can cull the very basic moral threads from all the world's religions so that scientific practice can be made morally responsible for it's actions. This way all the world's traditions could have a voice, on common ground, with how we want scientific discovery to proceed. The moral implications of genetic engineering are profound, as well as nuclear research and other fields of study. In my opinion, THEOSOPHY AND ONLY THEOSOPHY has the background to undertake this endeavor. </p>
<p>Just to be clear, I am not the kind of student or scholar who would be adequate to sit on such an ethics board. I do not want this for myself. I want this for the world. That is the real reason this thread was initiated in June of 2009. For me, this is why theosophy has to change. There is no place for an ancient or even old-fashioned approach to comparative religion. We were charged with studying and comparing religions, and this would be the ultimate focal point in today's times. Give our study meaning and make it relevant. It is the study, and not the teachers from the past that we need going forward. Again, just my opinion, and absolutely no place for me personally in this endeavor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote> Should we consider Ethics and…tag:theosophy.net,2011-04-29:3055387:Comment:473462011-04-29T02:20:11.135ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>Should we consider Ethics and Morality to be static concepts, defined by a few and frozen in time? Does society give Ethics and Morality unto itself or vice versa? Should science become subservient to religion? We have seen what happened in the past when this was the case. Someone had to drink poison. Another one was persecuted for saying that the earth is not flat.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Finally evolution took care of that and even the esoteric of the highest order like HPB had to include science…</p>
<p>Should we consider Ethics and Morality to be static concepts, defined by a few and frozen in time? Does society give Ethics and Morality unto itself or vice versa? Should science become subservient to religion? We have seen what happened in the past when this was the case. Someone had to drink poison. Another one was persecuted for saying that the earth is not flat.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Finally evolution took care of that and even the esoteric of the highest order like HPB had to include science in her theories.</p>
<p>The biggest apprehension against the genetic engineering we have is the creation of a Super Intelligent class which will rule over others by default. As if this is not the case now. But also historically this has been the case. When one compares the knowledge contained in the ancient scriptures, with the condition of humanity in general prevalent at that time, it does appear to be the work of a super intelligent race. Most traditions of the world carry stories of humans and other beings changing form. Should we believe that doing it by invoking a mantra or other such means is alright but not by taking an injection developed through use of genetic engineering? Numerous patients around the world today benefit from the Stem Cell Therapy. Should one believe that it could be possible without decoding the gene first.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Human gene has survived and thrived against all the onslaughts nature and evolution wreaked upon it, by <strong><em>changing</em></strong> and becoming smarter. Let us trust that it will continue to do so. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> My vision of the way theosoph…tag:theosophy.net,2011-04-29:3055387:Comment:473392011-04-29T00:41:30.228ZSusan Thomashttps://theosophy.net/profile/SusanThomas
<p>My vision of the way theosophy should change begins with Theosophers getting scientists on board with an ethics committee made up of people who can cull the very basic moral threads from all the world's religions so that scientific practice can be made morally responsible for it's actions. This way all the world's traditions could have a voice, on common ground, with how we want scientific discovery to proceed. The moral implications of genetic engineering are profound, as well as nuclear…</p>
<p>My vision of the way theosophy should change begins with Theosophers getting scientists on board with an ethics committee made up of people who can cull the very basic moral threads from all the world's religions so that scientific practice can be made morally responsible for it's actions. This way all the world's traditions could have a voice, on common ground, with how we want scientific discovery to proceed. The moral implications of genetic engineering are profound, as well as nuclear research and other fields of study. In my opinion, THEOSOPHY AND ONLY THEOSOPHY has the background to undertake this endeavor. </p>
<p>Just to be clear, I am not the kind of student or scholar who would be adequate to sit on such an ethics board. I do not want this for myself. I want this for the world. That is the real reason this thread was initiated in June of 2009. For me, this is why theosophy has to change. There is no place for an ancient or even old-fashioned approach to comparative religion. We were charged with studying and comparing religions, and this would be the ultimate focal point in today's times. Give our study meaning and make it relevant. It is the study, and not the teachers from the past that we need going forward. Again, just my opinion, and absolutely no place for me personally in this endeavor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> It fills my heart with joy to…tag:theosophy.net,2011-04-29:3055387:Comment:474702011-04-29T00:38:07.104ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
It fills my heart with joy to see the end of acrimony here. I wish and hope that we can continue this discussion withou taking offence at each other.
It fills my heart with joy to see the end of acrimony here. I wish and hope that we can continue this discussion withou taking offence at each other. If we had time to create an "…tag:theosophy.net,2011-04-28:3055387:Comment:466962011-04-28T13:15:31.154ZSusan Thomashttps://theosophy.net/profile/SusanThomas
<p>If we had time to create an "agenda" it would not be to place ourselves at the top of anything. Exactly what would be attained by a "coup" of a movement such as this? Sorry, I am so worldly as to not see this as being to my advantage somehow. The original intent of this discussion was to dialogue why science and religion (or more specifically-morality) have a gap that allows scientists to perform various "advancements" to our genetic structure that <strong>I personally</strong> feel to be…</p>
<p>If we had time to create an "agenda" it would not be to place ourselves at the top of anything. Exactly what would be attained by a "coup" of a movement such as this? Sorry, I am so worldly as to not see this as being to my advantage somehow. The original intent of this discussion was to dialogue why science and religion (or more specifically-morality) have a gap that allows scientists to perform various "advancements" to our genetic structure that <strong>I personally</strong> feel to be detrimental to our spiritual quest. </p>
<p>First, I could be wrong, and monkeys passing on green feet to their offspring may be just what my spiritual quest needs.</p>
<p>Second, someone might be able to explain to me why I am wrong.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Still listening to the discussion, but remembering that fundamentalism of all sorts closes the thinking mind.</p>
<p>You certainly do not have to accept that I do not think that any perfected human beings are relevant to this discussion. My only question is, if they are out there, why is science doing what it's doing without a challenge from them?</p>
<p>And I do not have to accept the idea of perfected human beings per your philosophy. </p>
<p>I do not feel threatened by your belief in perfected beings any more than I feel threatened by other fundamentalists who believe that I exist at the will of a whimsical god for only one life time on the off chance that I will be worshipping it when I exit stage left.</p>
<p>ST</p>