Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00466)

Hi Brigitte, Thanks for the response. I suspected a non-religious
background. This of course is not a bad thing, but it does tend to give a
certain tint to the glass through which you see life. It is interesting to
me that you view at least one goal of life as discovering new aspects which
make life more interesting. Of course you know this can be a self-centered
form of personal gratification. Again this is not a bad thing, just
different from some other possibilities.

You bring a great deal to this list and I try to follow what you post, but
must admit that the volume of quotes about what other people say is
sometimes overwhelming. I much prefer a simple explanation of what you
have to say.
Please bear in mind that this is not a theosophical history list. None of
us are obliged to respond to your historical inquiries just because you put
them forth. Such historical analysis may not be what makes life more
interesting for us. :)

It is clear that you have little tolerance for fundamentalism. What is not
clear is why you are soooo very aggressive against people once you label
them fundamentalist. Why have you concluded that this 'hit 'em hard and
fast between the eyes before they can blink' approach is the best one? 
How do such tactics square with your notion that "unity lies in accepting
.. diversity"? 
In my opinion, you and Daniel deserve each other. 

As for Adelasie. She, of course, is not Daniel and to treat the two the
same is to display a lack of discernment.

regards,
Bill

----------
> From: bri_mue <bri_mue@yahoo.com>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World In defence of exploration..
> Date: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:47 AM
> 
> Bill: "What is your religious background?"
> 
> My parents are not religious, but involved with nature and all of the 
> arts, and so was I early on, and it had a strong influence on me.
> 
> I started in my early teens reading Carl Jung as a friend mentioned 
> the word "psychology" as something "interesting". My interest quickly 
> spread to parapsychology. 
> 
> Did read a copy of Isis and the SD (but not all of it) during that 
> time, about 16 of age, and branched of from there to an interest in 
> the various esoteric movements,17th 18th century secret societys and 
> so on.
> 
> Travelled in North and South India, the Phillipines, staid for a year 
> on Hawaii where my familiarity with American english comes from. 
> During the time 9 or 10 years ago I was studying about Masonic secret 
> societys as I mentioned above, I had a brief contact with Joscelyn 
> Godwin who recomended Theosophical History Quarterly to me, and wich 
> is when more of an interrest in the history of the various 
> Theosophical movements started to devellop. I stayd a year in Dornach 
> Switzerland to study Steiners movement art Eurythmy, its a small 
> village and the environment was verry beautifull. During my trips to 
> India I also visited Adyar, and was in the Indian Headquarters in 
> Benares.
> 
> As far as reacting to fundamentalism, or forms of diminishing other 
> people, looking at the different esoteric groups, psychological 
> groups, cultural groups, the many ideas people have in various 
> societys, the unity seems to ly in accepting their diversity, and in 
> one or the other situation this or that might work better then 
> another. 
> 
> As for Theosophy, I already gave some of my opinions on the list, but 
> basicly expecially Blavatskyan Theosophy (probably the reason it 
> interests me) contains so many different things that TS members 
> often don't seem to be aware of, and seems to have been more explored 
> in the studys of Godwin, Johnson, Deveney, and some of the 
> Theosophical History Q. crew, that I was surprised to find out by 
> members of this list not to have not been read widely.
> 
> Sylvia Cranston might be a good book for first comers, but I think 
> would be wise to follow up with the more in depth above others, and 
> not just move from Cranston into religious type generalizations.
> 
> A different story as with Blavatsky (would need another approach) is 
> Leadbeaterian Theosophy or Alice Baily, that certainly are variations 
> based on Blavatsky's initial synthesis, and so on. 
> 
> What I have encounterred in most of the esoteric and other groups 
> that I have looked at and also seem to count for some members on this 
> list, is there is a tendency to take that particular system (and 
> that is what all of them are, their own synhesis and therefore 
> somewhat different from the others with common similaritys between 
> certain groups), project it on the outside world (like looking 
> through glasses in a particular color), and next in their desire for 
> it to be everything, try to bend or talk away (or in the worst case 
> scenario condemn) the things that now suddenly don't fit but they 
> don't notice that. I think that is a pitty and maybe the root cause 
> of fundamentalism of any kind.
> 
> A pitty because it limits oneself to discover new aspects wich 
> makes life interesting. There are always new things to discover 
> including in Blavatskyan Theosophy, its sources, background, 
> including Blavatsky's biography that for a large part still remains a 
> mystery. 
> 
> Brigitte
> 
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@s...> wrote:
> > Dear Brigitte,
> > Please tell us. What is your religious background? Will you tell 
> us the
> > truth?
> > I simply won't believe you if you don't.
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > ----------
> > > From: bri_mue <bri_mue@y...>
> > > To: theos-talk@y...
> > > Subject: Theos-World Re: in defence of Religion.
> > > Date: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:41 AM
> > > 
> > > Adelasie, first all, Larry F Kolts mentions he has been 35 years 
> an 
> > > active Mormon, what is your religious background ?
> > > 
> > > Don't tell me its Theosophy, because with expressions like "the 
> > > Devil" and "The Antichrist" I simple wouldn't believe you if 
> you'd 
> > > tell me you where a Theosophist most of your life. Will you tell 
> us 
> > > the truth ?
> > > 
> > > Brigitte
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:
> > > > Dear Brigitte,
> > > > 
> > > > You have gotten confused, I fear. In scholarship, attribution 
> is 
> > > > important. If you have forgotten who said what yesterday, how 
> shall 
> > > > we trust that you are historically accurate about things that 
> > > > happened 150 years ago?
> > > > 
> > > > In the paragraph below, I said the first sentence in one post. 
> > > > Someone else said the next three sentences in another post, and 
> I 
> > > > said the last three sentences in a third post in response to a 
> > > > different person. 
> > > > 
> > > > A word to the wise,
> > > > Adelasie
> > > > 
> > > > On 27 Jan 02, at 7:32, bri_mue wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Adelasie: " We need not submit to the machinations of this 
> force 
> > > which
> > > > > seeks to confuse and destroy. Could you consider the 
> possibility 
> > > that
> > > > > confusion and destruction are dangers that come to the 
> movement 
> > > from
> > > > > within, more than from without? From excessive faith, rather 
> than
> > > > > excessive doubt? From those who intend to protect Theosophy 
> from 
> > > the
> > > > > devil.- I always wondered what that term "antichrist" means? 
> That
> > > > > which is not the Christ? That which is opposed to the Christ?"
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > 
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>