Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00067)

<<<I'm wondering if Gerald is here saying that he can envision being "secure in one of those camps," if only . . . . (not that I know what G
might mean ("more-specifically") by "secure" or "somewhere in the middle"). Or is it that G might prefer to "seem to be somewhere in the
middle" "regardless," in some way, and not just "so far" . . .>>>

Dallas and others are very secure and content in their Theosophical belief system, their devotion (worship?) to Blavatsky, and they dislike anyone rocking their boat (including me). Brigitte and Steve are secure with their own ideas of Theosophy and Blavatsky which they feel is based on their own unbiased research. I am not feeling secure at all, and for the most part, my jury is still out. I feel somewhere between these two camps. 

*********************************

<<<Since I "tend to see" all of "Theosophy" as a form of hint offering or hint receiving/interpretation (depending on one's interpretive perspective) . . . well, does it really matter whether we get our (interpretive) "useable hints" from so-called "fact," or from so-called
"fiction" . . . in that surely it's our sense of "dualistic and/or intuitive convincingness" of whatever we "come across" "in life" that's
"relevant enough," and thereby "true enough" and "real enough". . . (regardless of how we might interpret/re-interpret/mutate "convincingness") . . .>>>

As long as one sees Theosophy as a finger pointing to Truth, and not Truth itself, it probably doesn't matter. But if one wants to believe that everything Blavatsky wrote is true, then one will feel very uncomfortable upon hearing that some things she wrote are not so. On the other hand, if one wants to believe that she was not an Initiate and that her message has no Truth to it, then one will feel very uncomfortable to hear that some of her words are indeed indicative of an Initiate. 

***************************

<<<And so why not read everything as if all words were no more than karmic feedback and thereby devoid of any "more-permanent" value, by themselves (regardless of who wrote them) and, at the same time, why not use Theosophy for what it was "meant to be" (essentially, I think, as per MY karmic/interpretive tendency, at any rate): as "inspirational material," rather than get snookered into simplistic, essentially
irrelevant concerns (well, as I see it) about its interpretive "relevance" with respect to this or that interpretive model of this or that interpretive variant while at the same time admitting (as some
Theosophists, in particular, seem to do) that dualisticity is mayavic .
. .>>>

Because it is psychologically important. If one is to progress on a Path, one must respect and honor the Teacher(s) of that Path, and Blavatsky herself today stands at the forefront of all of the various Theosophical linages that exist today. If she is wrong, then so is Besant, and Judge, and G de Purucker, and so on. Why psychologically important? Because one has to start with faith - one's Path always starts with faith in the guru or teacher. Without faith in Blavatsky and her Masters, the TM goes right down the proverbial drain.

*****************************

<<<Why not be consistent . . . and "understand" that all dualistic variants are, in effect, no more than dualistic, karmic "opportunities/hints," and that's all; and that such (interpretive) hints ("life experiences," in broader terms) ought to be seen "in perspective, basically," rather than as jumping boards for more of potentially endless dualism . . .>>>

OK, but then why Theosophy? Why anything? You are apparently advocating K's "pathless path" here, which needs no organizations or teachers. This is fine for some people, but most need to begin with faith, and some organizational support.

My own opinion on Blavatsky, having read her extensively, is that she was an Initiate or lower Adept. Aleister Crowley (like him or hate him) respected her writings enough to acknowledge her as an Adept, and he was very stingy with his praises. But she was, after all, human, and all human beings make mistakes. Her's are there for all to see, and I have discussed some on them here on this list, but they are few in relation to the vast amount of good solid information she gave out. So, yes, I am indeed somehere in the middle.

Jerry S.
--