Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00146)

Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> samblo@cs.com wrote:
>
> > I guess you failed to read my post retracting that statement I posted, it 
> > was not Randi but an anonymous writer for a London newspaper that made that 
> > statement which Randi featured on his Homepage.
>
> And I further stated that the quoted statement did not call "Zen" a 
> pseudoscience; he said "Zen" was being used as a label for 
> pseudoscience. As we all should know, labels can be deceptive.
>
> Bart
Okay, but my comments were meant in a 
general sense, in that, as I tend to see 
it, it's as if people, in general, tend 
to fall into one of two camps, to an 
extent, even on these lists: 1. people 
who tend to give me the impression that 
everything can be explained in exoteric 
terms, and, 2. people who seem as if 
they might have somehow transcended, in 
some sense, such exoteric limitations.

Which brings to mind what seem like 
similar differences between the Gnostics 
and the supporters of the orthodox 
church. I suspect that there might be, 
in some sense, similar differences among 
students of Theosophy, where those who 
might see themselves as tending to lean 
on some sort of "more scientific" 
approach might be seen as more orthodox 
in some sense than those who might be 
seen to be somewhat freer, or "more 
gnostic," in their thinking.

Speculatively,
Mauri