Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00042)

Jerry wrote:

>The recent "discussions" of theosophical history by Dallas, Paul, and Frank
>underscore the problems of trying to look at this subject in any kind of
>unbiased
>manner. The Adyar and ULT/Pasadena positions on Judge are virtually at
>opposite ends of an historical spectrum. This is, in fact, probably the
main
>single-most reason that I abhor theosophical history (sorry Paul, I know
you
>have tried, and you and Jerry HE are among the very few unbiased
>historians around, but you are up against two stone walls here).


...SNIP...

>Jerry S.


Jerry, only for clarification I would like to point out that I am not a
member whether of Adyar, ULT or Pasadena. I tried to give my view from my
own conclusions and learning in a foreign language. And the fact that
someone has published his book via an University may be impressing from a
more intellectualizing mundane standpoint but the Esoteric Philosophy has
other rules. Another problem with Theosophical History is that the REAL
THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY is still unwritten and can NEVER be written down in a
physical book as the insight must come from within as opposed to scientific
standards which overtones the outside, the world of maya. One cannot
describe the infinite with the messure of the finite. And Judge knew very
more than he wrote down or spoke publicly. Real theosophy begins where the
present science ends. How teach a blind about colors? that's for me the
reason why every true teaching and every true teacher are saying that one
can only grasp the higher life when you live it, you must be it, therefore
you cannot come to the truth before you have cultivated a subjective, a
biased view - in opposite to the neutral or unbiased theories of present
science. The last Aristotelic method is modern nowadays, but is it better?
Theosophy says NO.
Frank