Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00215)

Paul wrote: <<I doubt that there would 
be much difference between ARE members 
and Theosophists on attitudes toward 
religion vs. spirituality. >>

That might seem to be the case, but I've 
been speculating that maybe most 
student's of Theosophy might, on some 
kind of deeper level, (if not so much on 
less-deeper everyday levels, maybe 
...), have some sort of what might be 
called "basic understanding" about what 
might be called "spirituality" ... Well, 
I know that the word "spirituality" 
doesn't say much, so ... ^:-/ ... what 
can I say ...

<<The conflict I mentioned before was 
between Christian and universalist
factions and the latter won decisively.>>

So how about "universality" per 
"spirituality" ... in a sense, maybe ...
Isn't there some kind of sense by which 
"universality" might be seen to apply re 
"spirituality"... So if Theosophy is 
seen as catering toward b/Broader 
reality, and if "universality" is seen 
as relate to that, and if "spirituality" 
is seen as ...

<<Unfortunately the fired Christian 
executives then sued the organization 
and the settlement imposed (AFAIK) a gag 
order on discussing the conflict. So the
membership was kept in the dark about 
the terrible infighting that had gone on 
for a couple of years. Even though my 
"side" had won, the board's lack of 
accountability to the membership for its
disastrous mistakes was the last straw 
for me. (They also put in CT Cayce as 
an interim CEO saying they'd search for 
a new one, and then decided he'd be 
permanent, but never explained their 
actions to the members-- all very 
secretive.) Wilber's ascender/descender 
distinction seems better to explain the 
differences between ARE and Theosophy. 
Cayce's focus is much less otherworldly 
and more practical. Cheers,>>>

Cayce's sense of applicability seems to 
have been, in its way, "more religious" 
than spiritual, apparently ...

Spec,
Mauri