Theos-Talk Archives (August 1994 Message tl00130)

According to Eldon B. Tucker:
(Everything up to this point I take no exception to--PJ)

>     What I miss, or feel is under represented in our
> discussion group, is clear, lucid essays on the theosophical
> philosophy. I miss writings that clearly state the concepts of
> Theosophy in its own terms, writings that come from a belief
> that Theosophy is literally, actually, really true.

"A belief that Theosophy is literally, actually really true"
doesn't seem to correspond with your emphasis on buddhi, which
perceives not the literal and actual but the real that
transcends appearances.  Moreover, to me this has the ring of
orthodoxy in Theosophy, something HPB called "neither possible
nor desirable."

>     I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical
> attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of imagination,
> that it's just a fairy tale.

Here I can only speak for myself, but suspect that I am
the prime example of this tendency in your eyes.  It is
ABSOLUTELY NOT Theosophy as the ancient, timeless wisdom, the
Gnosis, the Gupta-Vidya, the Perennial Philosophy that is EVER
described, discussed, approached in this (doubting, cynical,
distrustful) manner you describe--  by me or anyone else on this
newsgroup.  Any individual person's formulation of Theosophy, on
the other hand, is completely susceptible to being viewed in this
light.  What is doubted, distrusted, suspected of being a sham,
imaginary, a fairy tale, is various efforts to claim an
authoritative knowledge of this Theosophy.