Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00219)

Hi Mauri. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I think I understand your desire
to protect and defend the "essence" of theosophy. I expect that if BA G
continues to post here, he will eventually draw the full and self-righteous
wrath of the many others here who are equally prepared to fight for the
essence of theosophy (although they might interpret that essence somewhat
different than you or me).

Perhaps you can help me to explain how theosophy can identify with Master's
of Wisdom at succeeding levels of mastery, each level deferring to those
higher, i.e., the chiefs have their chiefs who have their chiefs, and still
not acknowledge an Alpha and Omega?

Many men throughout history and in the present day have testified to an
experience of the Godhead that transcends the intellect. Always, such
testimony fails to transmit the essence of the experience, but the failure
seems one of communication rather than essential substance. While no one
here can be expected to defend exoteric christianity and its various
components, one might reasonably ask about the "essence" of christianity in
the same sense that one asks about the "essence" of theosophy. Is an
experience of the "essence" an individual experience that changes one's
consciousness of being? Is it strictly an intellectual accomplishment, or
does the soul make a joyful noise? Is the "essence" a strictly theosophical
experience or can other men from diverse histories with differenct
terminologys experience it too?

We might try to avoid requiring that theosophy's exoteric language be used
to represent the essence of the theosophical experience anymore than the
exoteric terminology of any other system represents the essence of that
system. What we might hope to do is compare and contrast the essence of
these various systems as best we can, seeking for a mutual understanding
among men of good will.

regards,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:43 PM
Subject: Theos-World re Theosophy, RC, Bhakti yoga, Bill, BAG, and ...


>
> Bill, I thought you made some relevant points in your post.
>
> You wrote:<<One might wonder at Mauri's motives in
> attempting to dismiss BA G's point of view as some sort of
> RC in thin disguise.>>
>
> Actually, believe it or not, I was attempting to speculate
> and attempting to question, primarily, rather than
> attempting to decisively dismiss anything as an "RC in thin
> disguise." Sorry about giving the "thin disguise"
> impression. Apparently it's difficult for me to express my
> curiosty about the motives of those who seem to come
> across as if they might be not just making helpful contrasts
> between Theosophy and ... whatever, but seem, to me, as
> if they might be trying to undermine the essence of
> Theosophy ... Sorry about that, I guess it's just that my
> instincts to protect Theosophic interests (as I tend to see
> them, at any rate) seems to surface at times, in spite of my
> efforts to maintain my cool, speculative exterior. Sorry.
> That is, of course contrasts are contrasts, so ... one might
> learn from contrasts ...
>
> <<Any such wonderings at motives might give rise to a
> speculation that while one theosophist might find HPB's
> theosophy comfortable largely because it is NOT Roman
> Catholicism (the enemy of my enemy is my friend),
> another theosophist might seek to compare, contrast, and
> learn from the synthesis which is a central tenet of
> theosophy. One may certainly ask where the "divine" in
> the Divine Wisdom resides without being considered an
> interloper.>>
>
> Yes, our speculations and questions have a way of often
> giving rise to all kinds of things in the minds of those who
> are predisposed to give rise to ... whatever. Sorry if I gave
> anybody rise to confusions, problems. Yes, certain kinds
> of contrasts might tend to elicit interesting perspectives, or
> whatever, in some cases. For example, if one studies the
> contrasts between Dallas's and Gerald's post ... But then,
> such contrasts might confuse some people even more, so
> ... what can I say ^:-)
>
> <<In my opinion, "caring for HPB" has little to do with a
> sincere search for the truth.>>
>
> I'm supposing that might be from:
>
> << BAG, I think most of us here know that the RC and
> > Bhakti yoga practitioners and various people and groups
> > did not, during HPB's time, and still don't, (apparently
> > enough?), care for HPB or Theosophy.
>
> Yes, I tend to agree that whether one cares for HPB and
> Theosophy is a side issue in the sense that we all tend to
> gravitate toward whatever we see as most
> applicable/relevant to our self, and so, (obviously
> enough?), if one finds much sense in, say, Catholicism,
> than such a person would not likely (or am I going on a
> limb, again?) find HPB and Theosophy particularly
> relevant and applicable for them, in general ... I'm
> speculating.
>
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>