Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00322)

At 01:26 AM 2/10/02 +0000, you wrote:
> Adelasie: so what is the point of arguing about it?
>
> Brigitte: obviously because Adelasie started the argument.
>
> But all arguing of Adelasie aside, it seems indeed that the spiritual
> world is all speculation as we can have no verifiable proof of any of
> it.
This is the thesis of materialism.

> Which is why one version of it is as good as any other, is a
> verry accurate statement.
How much good is found in a particular spiritual path depends upon
one's readiness and upon the suitability of that path to one's needs.
For a path to work, one has to take it completely, and not stand
around on the sidelines.

The statement "one is as good as any other" is only true when it
means "any valid path is good if one can undertake it and it works
for one." It does not mean "none are good" nor does it mean "it
does not matter if one tries any at all."

> For anyone who takes the time to open a
> dictionary on religions will soon find out that they are not similar
> as Theosophy claims, but are verry different.
Each may have a different cosmology and picture of the world.
Each may be suitable for a particular culture and time. (One good
book describing several major world religions and their context is
THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS by Huston Smith.)

The religions are *externally* (e.g. exoterically) different. But
Theosophy would say that there's a Mystery Tradition that has carried
on behind the scenes, which may include some of the more advanced
members of the various religions. They may not be public figures,
but they carry on an esoteric tradition that'll never show up in
any history book.

> And Theosophy be it
> probably one of the smallest religions in the world, is just one of
> the many instead of the many in the one, and in its content is verry
> differrent indeed from any other and all of the many religions.
The current theosophical movement certainly doesn't have the hundreds
of millions of converts of mainstream religions. I don't think it's
intent was to burden the world with another priestcraft and more
dogmatic churches.

I see the intent of the movement to (a) stimulate the interchange
of ideas across religious and cultural boundaries (e.g. anti-dogmatic),
(b) stimulate public interest in the spiritual in a time when the
negative side of Christianity had darkened the world, (c) introduce
fragments of mystery teachings to a public with little direct access
to the Mysteries, and (d) to build up and present the core doctrines
of another metaphysical system that was better suited to bring people
to tread the path to deeper understanding. (This means, when becoming
a "finished product," another exoteric system, of course.)

A scientist, wanting to know what an ancient people ate, might look
at the excrement found at burial sights, trying to find traces of
the food consumed. It may be possible, with limited success, to do so.
But the approach is far less accurate than simply joining the people
for dinner, if they are still alive and well.

Members of any genuine spiritual approach will acknowledge the value
of other approaches, and be glad that the other approaches successfully
help people. When someone fails to acknowledge this, it says they're
still too narrow-minded, and need to work on widening their perspective.
No matter if some particular Theosophists, Buddhists, Christians, or
Atheists are narrow-minded, their adopted approach remains of great
value to others and the world.

Do you acknowledge the value in the theosophical approach, and
the right of people wanting to learn about it to have a change to
learn about what it says in a non-hostile environment? Apart from
the historic speculations, are you familiar enough with the philosophy
to be able to say something about what it says, and do so in a
neutral, informative manner?

-- Eldon Tucker

> Brigitte