Re:The "Eternal Present: and KARMA
Apr 23, 1998 04:03 PM
by Jerry Schueler
>April 23rd Dear Jerry:
>No "scathing incitement" of any writer is intended. Alan Bain
>posts a clear statement recently: All we have is what is written
>"about Theosophy." This is true. Our job, as I see it, is to
>determine what is useful and accurate.
>Some of us have done this for ourselves and have been passing
>along our observation that the "core writings" have to be known
>well. Then when reading what anyone says, we have a basis for
>In any case our individual "common sense" has to be given full
>We have to assure ourselves (as HPB constantly reminds us) that
>even the "core writings" are reasonable and accurate. She did
>not want to be taken as "an authority." and the reason is plain
>as I see it, she knew that words can be misinterpreted. She
>repeats herself many times in various places and uses different
>words and illustrations, trying to get about 7 ideas through to
>us. The "three fundamentals" of the SD
>( I pp. 14-18 } are the start of that. UNITY, KARMA,
>REINCARNATION, UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND INTER-ACTION are, as I
>see it, the other 4. She calls them the "golden Links" in the
OK, except that I see her writings (and the written word per se) as
>What I, and others [ like Geoffrey Farthing in his Manifesto] are
>trying to say is, simply: do not be misled by second level
>writers, who (to us, and as a result of our study comparisons) do
>not seem to truly understand what the CORE TEACHINGS are or were
>meant to say.
I have no real problem with your position on this, but will once again
request a single example. You keep saying words like "misled"
and "second level" but won't give me any examples. I have not read
every writer, but what I have managed to read seems good to me as
either reflections or amplifications of HPB's work, which seems to be
an acceptable thing to do to me. I still don't understand your or
Farthing's point. Obviously there are some writers that you feel are
plain ol' wrong about something. You should share this with us.
>Everyone likes a shortcut, or something that is comfortable to
>their established views. Many of the intermediate writers after
>HPB and Judge have satisfied this tendency, and tend to mislead.
>AND THAT IS ALL.
Where? How? Who? Should I throw out all the books I have by
Theosophical writers other than HPB and her Masters?
>My voice is raised as a CAUTION. I do not condemn, I would
>rather that you or anyone else read and decide for your selves.
>It is quite impossible for anyone to do another's thinking for
>them ! If you look at HPB's statements on Education in the KEY
>you will notice that she says that the ideal should be "free
>intellectually, free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and
>above all things unselfish." (p. 271)
Well, I agree of course. And I have done so. And I find other
writers to be quite good. I would say that I do not agree with
some of the ideas (like group souls) of AB & CWL, but I don't
want to throw out the baby with the bathwater either.
>I do hope that this is clear. The original writings are quite
>coherent. Those that wrote following those originals, begin to
>show signs of incohateness, and the reasons for that can be
>Margaret Thomas in 1925 published such a comparison:
> THEOSOPHY or NEO-THEOSOPHY
>I believe that the Edmonton, Canada T S has reprinted it
>recently. It is worth reading.
Well, I shall try to get a copy of this. I agree that the original
writings are coherent, but I do not agree that they are
complete. We once had a long discussion on theos-l about
the Globes and Planes, for example, and I was amazed at
the breath and scope of the various and different interpretations
that people had on this one subject. It was almost like we
were each referring to different sources and mainly because
the teachings provided by HPB and in the MLs are so
skimpy and vague as to allow for multiple interpretations.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application