Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00176)

>What is your definition of soul, Frank? Everyone has one. Christians think
>it
>is what survives the physical body and goes to heaven or hell and pretty
>much
>looks like the physical body. Jung defines it as the personality (CW Vol 6
p
>463)
>and this is pretty much how it is viewed in modern psychology. Because
>the everyday definition of soul is a living presence that resides within
the
>body, "body" or "vehicle" is a piss poor synonym. And no, that teaching
>is NOT the same at all. It various with different occult schools.
>
For me the soul basically is a vehicle. To make a long story short please
read the good definitions in the Occult glossary or in the Key. I support
the same view.

>>And as Annie Besant stated so well in
>>a Lucifer article, that teachings HPB gave are called Theosophy, what she
>>not taught or what is in contradiction to her teachings cannot be called
>>Theosophy. To alter the terms is not only unfair to the newbees but is
also
>>Theosophy misunderstood.
>
>All I can say to this kind of fundamentalistic thinking is bullshit.
>(I am really trying to be nice, polite, and loving to one and all,
>but this kind of stuff is really making it a challenge). HPB said
>many many times that Theosophy has no doctrines or beliefs
>and that we can be good Theosophists and believe anything
>we want as long as we agree on universal brotherhood.


That's YOUR view. For me Theosophy offers the greatest liberty and freedom I
ever heard of or saw. For me your position is fundamentalistic and also -
let me openly say - very dogmatic. It would be of interest if your statement
is only your personal view or if it is the position of your Pasadena TS.

>
>>Again I must help Dallas. Jerry, why do you always put under something?
>>Dallas never wrote or meant that Kama is bad, that is your own
>>misconception. All what he wrote was that kama is personal and selfish,
and
>>that is exactly correct.
>
>If this is what Dallas was trying to say, then I stand corrected. But the
>words that he usually chooses to express himself are misleading and
>subject to interpretation, and I apparently often misunderstand. Both
>you and Dallas are so intensely concerned with ethics and morals,
>and right and wrong, that it often seeps out between your lines, perhaps
>even when you don't consciously intend it.
>
>Jerry S.


OK. Nobody is perfect. Wanted to make it only clear. Justifications are not
necessary. Someone is not guilty of who another one is interpreting his
words. I always found that the statements of Dallas are nearly always were
clear and sharp and hard to misunderstand if you has the basic knowledge of
the theosophical standard literature. Misunderstandings often are arising
when the genuine teachings (which are the greatest freedom and spirituality
for me) are mixed up with foreign teachings. That makes it sometimes hard to
discriminate. I should note that I am not on Dallas' loan list. And I do
sometimes not agree with some conclusion he makes, too. But have always
found that he expresses clear what he means. What is wrong with ethics and
morals. HPB said often that Theosophy in its last consequence is nothing
else than ethics and moral. I support that because I can proof it everyday
in my life.

Frank