Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00089)

9 "I's"
5 "my's"
2 "me's"

What is this response really about?

Spencer


> ASANAT@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Dallas,
>
> Your statement seems to state that Theosophy consists of a series of
> CONCEPTUAL tenets that are devised by the analytical mind, and addressed to
> the analytical mind.  If this is what you intend, it is in direct
> contradiction with what HPB & her teachers said, over & over again:  In order
> to even BEGIN to study theosophy (not capitalized, since theosophy is not a
> conceptual system, according to HPB & her Masters), there MUST be
> regeneration, transformation, initiation.  Your statement, however, does not
> mention transformation at all.  It therefore assumes that a mere
> acknowledgment and acceptance by the analytical mind is all that is required.
>  As I have shown in my paper TRANSFORMATION:  VITAL ESSENCE OF HPB'S SECRET
> DOCTRINE, according to HPB & the Masters, theosophy is that which takes place
> in theosophical, divine-like, states of awareness.  If there are no
> theosophical states of awareness, there is no theosophy.  Therefore, ANY
> presentation of theosophy MUST state clearly and unambiguously that there
> must be transformation in order to understand anything theosophically.  If it
> does not do that, it is not a theosophical presentation, according to HPB &
> the Masters.
> Your statement (and ANY statement which claims theosophy can ever be a
> CONCEPTUAL system) is at severe variance with what HPB & the Masters taught,
> unless I have myself severely misunderstood the many quotes I provide in my
> work.  The very many references I offer, however, suggest rather strongly
> that theosophy is not, and cannot be, a conceptual system.
> Conceptual presentations of theosophy WERE given to VICTORIANS at the time of
> HPB, since Victorians did not have the means to know any better.  But now
> that we have access to such insights as come from schools like Zen & Tibetan
> Buddhism (both of which are specifically singled out by the Masters as
> ESOTERIC, & therefore as THEOSOPHICAL); now that we have access to so many
> developments in psychology (which were originally inspired by the
> theosophical movement, as I show in my work), and that other schools have
> pointed to the need for transformation (such as the Gurdjieff schools); now
> that J. Krishnamurti has been here, showing more clearly than had ever been
> done before the urgent necessity for transformation if humanity is to go
> anywhere meaningful & productive, it seems like a colossal, inappropriate
> waste of time & effort to continue grinding such old corn at that Victorian
> mill.
> But despite the presence of "tenets" for the benefit of
> transformation-challenged Victorians in the early days, it is a FACT that the
> Masters always made it crystal clear that theosophy CANNOT happen unless
> there is initiation, transformation.  That I show -- I think, beyond a shadow
> of a doubt -- in my work.
> Please do correct me if I'm wrong.  Our understanding of what theosophy is,
> is what is at stake here, not anyone's particular perception of this.
> My paper can be found at:  teosofia.com, which is Rodolfo Don's web page.
> If you are correct that theosophy is a CONCEPTUAL system, then HPB & the
> Masters must have been totally wrong, in the many references I provide, which
> comprise the entire corpus of HPB's work, including the letters from the
> Masters.
> Please enlighten me.
> Aryel
>
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
begin:vcard 
n:Kellogg;Spencer
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:kellogg@west.net
x-mozilla-cpt:;1
fn:Spencer Kellogg
end:vcard