Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00505)

Mauri,

I would try to reply to your two postings but
I am not at all sure exactly what your point
is in relationship to the subject matter of
the original post.

Could you clarify what you are trying to
present?

Daniel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> Mauri wrote: <<Sounds to me as if the 
> old orthodox/literal interpretive 
> influences keep on gnawing away at any 
> kind of "more 
> gnostic/intuitive/esoteric" approach.>>
> 
> Not that the methods of various kinds of 
> inquisitions haven't kept up with the 
> times, to some extent, one might think 
> ... (so much so that the word 
> "inquisition," as it was once used by 
> "the Church" re "heretics," might be 
> generally seen to have been relegated to 
> history, one might think ...). Not that 
> one person's heretic, inquisition, 
> truth, wisdom, etc, might not be another 
> person's whatever, so sorry about the 
> circularity of my speculating (thanks, 
> Leon, for having pointed out my tendency 
> towards circularity in my speculating; 
> but, what can I say ...). Of course, on 
> the other hand, Theosophists, or 
> students of Theosophy, (or some or most 
> of them, maybe ...), might be seen to 
> have somehow transcended the age-old 
> "orthodox vs. gnostic" squables ...
> 
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
> 
> PS ^:-/ ... that's my symbol for a 
> speculative guy who thought might've had 
> something worthwhile-enough to say, 
> maybe, but wound up scratching his head 
> at the circularity (among other things) 
> of his comments.