Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00105)

re Joe, Dallas, leadership, interpretations ...

Joe wrote: <<Verily a paradox we have here now. A movement 
which is supposed to be creedless, and with the objects (VERY 
loosely stated) of a) Promoting Universal Brotherhood, b) 
encouraging study of religion, philosophy & science, c) 
investigation of unexplained laws of nature and psychical powers 
latent in man...and what we are faced with here...as anethema as 
it may sound, is that there is no requirement for theosophists to 
study "theosophy" in order to be members of any TS. <<

Yes, even speculators like me get to me members of a TS!

<< The 1900 letter from KH to Besant exhorts her to make the 
ES as creedless as possible...>>

One might wonder where one might find references to that letter?
I was under the impression that the Mahatmas clearly enough 
stated, in one of their letters (Daniel or Dallas might know which 
one), that they would not be corresponding with anybody after 
HPB's passing. Or am I mistaken?

<<and yet, if we read several of the postings put out here 
regularly for consideration, it ends up sounding like attempts to 
make a theosophical-based religion, complete with a set of 
canonical literature, much like what one would expect from a
Claire-Prophet, Bailey, or Besant-Leadbeater, instead of the open 
and honest inquiry exhorted by HPB and the Mahatmas. >>

One might wonder which postings you're referring to?

<<Did someone here say that we shouldn't study astrology or 
occult sciences, or investigate nature, only mahatma's have the 
right, or the reason to do that...where did that come from? How 
can anyone who considers themselves a student of theosophy 
could come up with something like that! >>

How one defines "study astrology or occult sciences" might be 
somewhat relevant, though, on the other hand, when taking into 
account one's karma-specific scenario with respect to one's 
definition of such as "truly spiritual" ... ?

>>There is absolutely no precedent in the early literature to 
support such a statement! In fact, all evidence in the ML and 
other early literature would seem to be quite the contrary!>>

Not knowing what "early literature" is being referred to, what 
comes to mind is that "evidence," in general, would tend to be 
dependent (as I see it) on how one interprets it, its sources, 
"early literature," etc., in whatever contextual sense.

<<Of course such an attitude leads to someone without practical
experience giving out advice on things they truly know nothing
about...it's just all theoretical flapdoodle, and it shows!!! >>

Seems that part of our collective karma involves a certain 
emphasis or aspect in keeping with learning to, in effect, "think 
for ourselves," IMHSO, "for better or worse," as it were. But, 
true enough, sometimes that kind of thinking can be challenging. 
:-/ >>

<<You can't talk about Voice of the Silence authoritatively 
unless you have a background in Raja Yoga.>>

One might wonder how one might more specifically define "talk 
about Voice of the Silence suthoritatively" in that context ... ?

<< That is horribly sad, and unfortunate, because what is in the 
"Voice" is practical in the deepest, most important ways, and the 
dangers, likewise, are the same. THIS IS A WARNING!!!>>

Thanks, Joe. I'll keep your words in mind.

Speculatively,
Mauri







Of course such an attitude leads to someone without practical
experience giving out advice on things they truly know nothing
about...it's just all theoretical flapdoodle, and it shows!!! You
can't talk about Voice of the Silence authoritatively unless you 
have
a background in Raja Yoga. That is horribly sad, and 
unfortunate,
because what is in the "Voice" is practical in the deepest, most
important ways, and the dangers, likewise, are the same. THIS 
IS A
WARNING!!!