Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00070)

>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.

OK. I am a member of Pasadena and Adyar am have been trying to
unify the two as much as possible.


> 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.

I read, and liked, Paul's book years before it was published at SUNY
(I still have a copy of the original self-pub that Paul sold himself).


> 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.

OK, but I was talking about the history of the modern theosophical
movement started by HPB and a few others, which *should* be
historically possible to discuss, but isn't.


>One cannot
>describe the infinite with the messure of the finite. And Judge knew very
>more than he wrote down or spoke publicly.

I wonder. I am sure that HPB did. I am unconvinced about anyone else.


>Real theosophy begins where the
>present science ends

I am not sure what you mean here. Certainly the spirit or what I like
to call the theosophical current cannot be put into words very well
and discussed. But the SD is largely historical, and should be
capable of being scientifically demonstrated (actually, some of
it already has been).

Jerry S.