Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00207)

Jerry wrote in reply to my earlier post:
>D, its been my understanding that you should always go with experience.
>There is a human need for some kind of mental framework upon which
>we can compare our experiences and make sense of them. Some call
>this world view, others belief system, but whatever we call it, we need
>it for our mental health. The interesting thing about this is that it
>doesn't
>seem to matter what the belief system is, or what the world view is, so
>long as we have one that allows us to make sense of our experiences.

Yes i agree with this - And i think it underlines the pure subjectivity of
all POV's.
i would also say that it emphasizes the fluidity of all things - Nothing is
concrete - especially not philosophy. As soon as Theosophy stops accepting
new forms of interpretation and ideas it crystallizes - regardless of it's
inherent value.

>In a very real sense then, reality is relative. As we experience new things,
>we have to periodically adjust our world view to accommodate them. Big
>changes are hard to make, and require what I call a significant emotional
>event or SEE.  A SEE (cognitive dissonance is a mild SEE) will effect us in
>one of two ways: either we find a new world view or we die. I have never
>seen any kind of compromise work for very long.

The school of life teaches more than any book.

>My own experiences led me away from Christianity and into yoga and
>Buddhism. Even when I came into Theosophy, I approached it slowly
>and carefully. However, I have remained a Theosophist all these years
>largely because its world view allows me to make sense of my
>experiences more than any other world view that I have studied yet
>(although the Great Perfection school of Tibetan Buddhism comes very
>close).

I started at as a scientific rationalist with very anti-religion views ,
especially anti-catholicism. But Fritjof Capra's 'The Tao of Physics'
opened my eyes to eastern philosophy - I started with Hinduism, but found
it was too anthropomorphic so moved to Buddhism - and yes I too find
Mahayana to be the closest teaching to my experience. I think HPB's
Theosophy was really just an argument to present eastern philosophy to the
western rationalistic mind in small doses, that is why karmamudra and drugs
are rarely mentioned - It would have been too much for the victorians of
the time who would then have rejected the philosophies on moral grounds.

>I am also familiar with Crowley and his work. He also used drugs to
>obtain Gnosis, and had very good results. But he also needed to
>find a proper world view, and since nothing was available he made
>his own (which is supposed to be the work of every true Magus).
>There is a lot of similarity between Theosophy and Crowley (albeit
>most, if not all, Theosophists will refuse to accept this). But I have
>found that their currents (atmospheres or major psychic vibrational tone)
>are quite different. The Theosophical current is soft, feminine, loving,
>and accepting (ULT possibly excepted). The OTO current is hard
>and masculine.  Which current one likes best is subjective and personal.
>I have found good stuff working with both. But either current can go too
>far. The feminine current can get too spineless or wishywashy while
>the masculine can get selfish. There is good and bad in both. The
>important thing is to find a world view that works for you.

Perhaps then the middle path is best - an androgynous form of philosophy. I
really think both schools have much to offer and I hate to see people stick
to one 'hard line' becuas of preconceived and socially programmed
conceptions (as appears to be the case with many a fundamentalist
Theosophist).

I'm pretty happy with my own synthesis - I have just one bugbear. Society
deems me to be a criminal. So if i am true to myself I should not try and
fir societies values but get society to change it's values. It's a very
slow hard painful process - and every outcast is a hero a century later.

Thanks for your comments Jerry.

Darren