Theos-Talk Archives (May 2004 Message tt00124)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "krishtar" <krishtar_a@b...> wrote:
> My doubt is that it would be possible to theosophy and RC doctrines 
to live together...

The only point of difficulty I am aware of is the Theosophical
notion that people only reincarnate after thousands of years in
the Pure Land (devachan.) Nobody outside theosophy takes this
idea seriously. I suggested to a Fundamentalist one time that
what HPB might have had in mind was that this long period of time
was how the devachanee experienced it SUBJECTIVELY, and that what
we in this part of the world would call "wall clock time" might
be a few years. An instance of that is the reported experience
of the dying in which they see their entire lives pass before
their eyes in what to us is just a few seconds. He insisted that
she meant thousands of years in OUR time frame, but if so her
position seems questionable to this student.

As for the seven principles theory, bear in mind that it is a
model, and that as Korzybski says "the map is not the territory." 
If you wrote a book on India, for example, you might enclose a
map which showed the contour of the country and its relationship
with neighbors, plus a few major rivers and cities. However, if
you were a map publisher you might enclose more detail on a
national map and even more on a city map. The fact that these
would differ in the amount of detail does not mean one is valid
and the other not.

In any event I am not at all persuaded that either AMORC or
Theosophy are right about everything, and reserve the right to
determine for myself what is closest to the truth. So if they
disagree, I may disagree with both of them after examining the
evidence.

> I read some excerpts from Heindel books and found very similar
to CWL's ideas and also theosophy and found strange because it
has nothing to do with what i was learning from the RC
monographs...

Heindel was an immigrant from Denmark who started a group of his
own in Oceanside, California, in 1910 I believe (whereas AMORC
was founded in New York City on the other side of the continent
in 1915.) Heindel was a student of Rudolf Steiner, who claimed
some sort of "Rosicrucian" affiliation, although it has never
been clear to me whether he was basing this on his membership in
the Oriental Rites of Memphia and Mizraim (a Masonic group) or
the OTO. Steiner later denied ever calling himself a
Rosicrucian. Anyway, while Heindel was in Germany Steiner
lectured on Goethe's "Rosicrucian" poem "Die Geheimnisse" (The
Mysteries) and Heindel later worked the story in the poem into
what he claimed was a personal experience in which a mahatma
appeared to him and ordered him to start a group of his own,
passing off Steiner's stuff as his. In order to cover his
tracks, Heindel claimed he was in Germany in a different time
frame from that in which Steiner gave these lectures. His group
still exists, but are a very small group which is interested
primarily in astrology. Since the name is in the public domain
anyone can start any business and call it Rosicrucian.

> I might as well think that they put much emphasis in the
development of what we may call Siddhis but it is driven to
experimentation...and it prevents the mere believing in what is
written down in books...what we can see for ourselves will be
undoubtful.

Yes, it seems to me they emphasize the psychic to the total
exclusion of the spiritual.

> Beasant's prohibition to other affiliations read in the Peter
"Baboon" Washington's but as the book is very doubtful, I
thought he was garbling again.

I think he was right about that since it was reported at the
time.