Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00079)

 re "Morten Nymann Olesen" Sun, 6 Jul 2003 
21:29:08 +0200
re "Theosophical thought, Experience and
Teaching..." 

Seemed like a relevant (or "good") post, to me, 
apparently, on first reading, in a sense, I think ...

<<... we can see that the real Theosophical 
organisation teaching and learning differ 
fundamentally from all other 'systems'.>>

While one might see much sense (in whatever sense) in 
that kind of wording re what might be seen as the 
applicability of a Theosophy in terms of an 
organization and in comparison to "other systems"... 
Still, what came to mind was the question of how the 
author of that sentence might define "real" in that 
context. That is, presumably a "real Theosophical 
organization" is made up of "real" people, as well (or is 
it?), so ... In other words, I tend to wonder if there 
might be people out there who might wonder (as I'm 
tending to, apparently) about the specifics of 
"realitiness" (or "realisticity" as per ...) of people in 
general and in particular in various Theosophical 
organizations, and how the various perceptions of such 
"realities" might, "more specifically" (ie, from whatever 
interpretive, established or theoretical relevant 
perspective), translate in turn into organizational 
Theosophics. I suspect that most students of 
Theosophy might tend to concern themselves (by way 
of whatever interpretive tendency or belief) with the 
nature and applicability of the various "relevant 
realities" that may be seen to attend their studies or 
"approaches." Not that questions regarding "realities" 
were not dealt with in that post. On the contrary, 
much would seem to have been effectively explained 
about that topic by that author.

I tend to suspect that a "real" Theosophist might be 
anybody who might think of themself as a "real" or 
"real enough" Theosophist, at least for a start: that the 
"real" nature of the "real" in that connection 
might/would "really" (per various "real/relevant" 
interpretational tendencies) seem to be the "real" issue, 
so ... If different people have different "reals," could 
that mean that we might wind up with different 
Theosophists, all of whom might claim to be "real" 
enough ... ? 

I guess I'm saying that "realitiness" in Theosophics 
seems interesting, to me, not that ...

Speculatively,
Mauri