Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00065)

Al:

[writing to Jerry]

>Crowley ... His theories and views on spiritual and material, and
>the methods of union seem to be different from Theosophy.

What does he say, and how does it seem to differ? (The differences
provide an opportunity for some philosophical exploration.)

>I find it hard to really pinpoint the problem. But there seems to be
>something missing from the people of Theosophy. It might just be those on
>the list (apart from a few exceptions) who show a dryness and lack sparkle.
>Some have great knowledge and giant intellects, but I cannot see the real
>life.

That doesn't mean that the people are lacking in the other
qualities of a well-rounded person, including having a warm
heart. It just means that you're seeing only one face to them,
only one aspect of them.

It's rare to find a knowledgeable group of people to explore
the deeper reaches of the theosophical philosophy, to do some
"deep space exploration" of high metaphysics with. If that's
all you see them doing on the list, you're getting a one-sided
view of their overall natures. It doesn't mean that there is
nothing more than that to them.

Some lists are more social in nature, and have a stronger
personal touch to them. They're easier places to meet people
and make friends. It's possible to do so anywhere, but much
easier in places where the topic and focus of discussion is
in that direction, rather than one of gazing in awe at
the wonder and majesty of the universe, both seen and unseen.

What you seem to be noticing, which is often missing from
theosophical discussions, is the *something more* that can
and should be present. It's the "sparkle factor," the sense
of wonder and magic and excitement of discovery, the fires
of creativity, the inflaming power of the spirit, which can
be behind and empowering the ideas as they are shared. (That
is, buddhi-manas, or mind enflamed by the fire of spirit,
rather than just manas by itself, mind devoid of higher
inspiration.)

>I ask for help, not once but several times, and non is forthcoming. I
>wasn't asking the group to chew my cud, in the words of Leon. I was asking
>because I thought the people cared and wanted to help in the practical
>aspect's, not merely doctrine.

One problem may be that there's so much email going out that
it's hard to carefully look over every message and so some
may be overlooked. Another is that because of the impersonal
nature of the medium -- ascii email over the Internet -- it's
hard to establish both a mind-to-mind and a heart-to-heart
connection with others.

>For example, I wished everyone a happy
>christmas, but not one kind remark was return.

A mailing list can be anything that you make of it. Whatever
you'd like to see, you'll bring about by continuing to write
in a certain way. Abstract discussions are encouraged by
people posting abstract pieces. Historic discussions are
encouraged by others posting on theosophical history. Other
discussions dealing with personal experiences and concerns
in life are the same -- they're begun because someone is
interested and continues to write about them.

>I had considered joining the O.T.O or A.A. before I came across
>theosophy. Then I scrapped the O.T.O. and read HPB. And over the
>past few months I have heard on this list our ritual magick is
>part of the left hand path and that Crowley was so-called evil.
>This brought back the division and the pain of which one (if
>any) show'd and practiced what I needed.

First, I'd say that most Theosophists would say that each
person should follow that path to spiritual development that
works for them, and not follow something based upon some
external authority, or patterned after what works for another.

And it's fairly useless to say "this is good and that is bad"
without explaining and convincing the other person. A much
better approach is to say: "this is how *we* do it, and why
we think our way is a better one, and here's all the benefits
and advantages of our approach over others, now you decide
which you'd like to try."

To do this, though, requires someone to be familiar with
the theosophical approach *as a spiritual practice*, and
not just as a form of book study. Because there's no organized
theosophical religion, with sangha, gurus, formalized training,
etc., it's harder to know that there's *something there*
just by attending a study class, unless some in the class
are aware of the *depths* and make some effort to articulate
them.

Without going into *what* it is -- quite an involved subject! --
I'd just say that if you study the theosophical philosophy,
ponder its deeper side, keep alive your spiritual inquiry
into life, and work on opening up your mind/heart, that can
and will take you places. The deeper places that it takes
you, though, aren't those that can readily be put into books
or talked about much in advance, and they're not brought
about simply by the external manipulation of one's outer life.

There's good to come from diet, exercise, regular meditation,
control of temper, cultivation of kindness, contemplation
of loft thoughts, involvement in unselfish activities, staying
connected to innovative movements that help evolve humanity,
etc. These all help set the environment in which certain
inner growth can occur and one's inner nature can ripen.
There's much more to the process, but it comes *from within
outwards*, and opens up on its own accord, and the growing
ability to *know* philosophically is but the precursor to
much more ...

And so I'd say that there *is* something to the theosophical
approach, even if it's not always apparent when one attends
some theosophical groups or classes, from what seems to be
offered one, as a new student.

-- Eldon