Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00330)

Yes Paul, that helps me understand your orientation to our subject 
and makes your comments clearer to me. But I would ask you one 
thing. Are you aware that according to occultism, or theosophy, as 
you call it, that which tends toward unity is positive and generates 
progress, and that which tends toward separation is negative and 
retards progress? In the light of this, what is your purpose in 
concentrating on the differences you perceive between eternal truth, 
represented by the term "theosophy," and the most recent 
manifestation of some portion of eternal truth, which you 
characterize as "Theosophy?" You allow for the fact that spiritual 
reality is always disorted when represented on the material plane, 
but do you imagine that you can do a better job of representing it 
than, for instance, HPB, who was a great adept and who had 
access to sources which are not available to you or anyone else? 
What good does it do anyone to concentrate on the personal foibles 
of anyone else? Do we ever do more than reflect our own 
weaknesses when we choose to concentrate on the weaknesses of 
others? Doesn't the material speak for itself, and suggest, even, 
that we investigate it with our own faculties, not taking anyone 
else's word for its validity? 

Adelasie

On 21 Jan 02, at 16:45, kpauljohnson wrote:

> --- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:
> > Dear Paul,
> > 
> > I think I am beginning to understand what is going on here. 
> > Somewhere else (I had a lot of emails to go through when I returned
> > and so I'm not sure where) I think I read that you said, "I am not 
> a theosophist." Am I correct in deducing that you view theosophy as >
> a historical anomaly, 
> 
> No, I think you're getting that from the way I view Theosophy. 
> Theosophy is a movement that originated in the 19th century; 
> theosophy is a kind of knowing. I used to adhere to the former; the
> latter is something one can't escape as long as one pursues spiritual
> studies of any kind.
> 
> greater 
> > consciousness. But your approach may be more like that of viewing
> > theosophy from the outside, and trying to investigate it from that
> > point of view, without any personal involvement.
> 
> Re Theosophy, that is, that is now the case.
> 
> > Her personal idiosyncracies do not affect the validity of theosophy
> > in my view, since theosophy exists within and beyond any material
> > phenomenon. 
> 
> Right, but they do affect the validity of Theosophy to some extent, as
> they distorted her writings. And all writings are distorted by
> personal idiosyncrasies in some way or other.
> 
> > So it seems we are attempting to talk about something that we view
> > in very different ways. This is not impossible, but it is not easy,
> > since our very definitions are opposite from each other. I see
> > theosphy as a representation in material form of eternal truth, 
> which exists in everything, including myself, 
> 
> same here
> 
> and you see it as a phenomenon external to yourself to be examined for
> validity. Is that > a fair analysis? > No; you seem to be equating
> theosophy with Theosophy. I see the latter as a very 19th century
> phenomenon whereas the former is timeless.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
>