Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00005)

>
>    {{DALLAS ]]        I would not advance CROWLEY as a sample of
>either Theosophy or of ethical advocacy -- since everything that
>he emphasized ( and others of his 'followers' too -- glorified
>thepersonality, and the "powers" that could be acquired to
>dominate others.  It is an exposition of pride and selfishness.
>In other words the direct opposite of THEOSOPHY.
>

Actually, he does not glorify the personality and his teachings are
very close to HPB's whom he held as a high initiate and respected.
However, I was only using Crowley as an example of an esoteric
school that did not emphasize ethical development. The same can
be said for the Golden Dawn. So neither the OTO nor the GD, the
two biggest occult schools alive today, emphasize ethcal
development nor consider it to be terribly necessary for spiritual
growth.


>As I have said before THEOSOPHY is knowledge and therefore
>presents us with "history."  If the word "Ethics" is to be used
>then it needs to be further defined as "an observation of the
>operations of KARMA in all departments of Nature and expressly in
>regard to the power of Humanfree-will, thought, and emotion.

If so, then there have been few esoteric schools in the West, which
typically never taught karma.

Have to go.

Jerry S.