Theos-Talk Archives (April 1995 Message tl00109)

Edon, in the spirit of your interdisciplinary approach to
theosophy (which, as you say, is necessitated by the
diversity of theos-l itself) I have some questions which
cropped up as I read your posting on Theosophical Differences.

< That there are core concepts

I suppose that we can all agree on reincarnation and karma,
but what are a few more of these?

< these core concepts lead to a "gnostic breakthrough" that
< is not "readily coming" from other arenas

Do you mean direct experience here? Mystical experience? Can you
amplify a bit as to why you believe that such results are not
available in other "philosophical materials?" I recall that you
mentioned Zen once, and Zen certainly has a "gmostic
breakthrough" available to its practitioners, at least as I
interpret your meaning.  Or do you mean that HPB's core teachings
are simply easier for us Westerners (which is probably true in
most cases)? Do you agree with Jung who suggests that Eastern and
Western approaches are not compatible? Do you agree or disagree
with James Long who taught that our "Western constitution" is not
conducive to Eastern meditation techniques?

<growth "based upon additional individual insights"

Here, I believe, you have hit a nail on its head, so to speak, in
so far as CWL is concerned.  Your argument that CWL teaches
things not taught by HPB seems to fall into this category.  And
what is the Point Loma view of personal insight or a "gnostic
breakthrough" that seems to conflict with something HPB said? Do
you assume that any such experience is invalid? This point also
falls across your point 4 of Point Loma Philosophy, which would
seem to indicate that HPB is always right, and that any personal
exprience to the contrary is always wrong.

I think I might agree that a direct conflict with HPB or the ML
is _probably_ an error.  But their teachings are skeletal, and
leave a lot of room for flesh to be added without real conflict.
For example, I am not aware of anything in any of my magic books
that directly conflicts or opposes HPB or the ML.  But some of
the material certainly goes against the grain of many TSs (the
very advocation of using magic, for example.  HPB warned of its
dangers, and asked that the TS not practice or teach it, but she
herself did both).  One could also argue that the Enochian
Universe Model that I developed is in opposition to HPB's Gupta
Vidya Model.  But so is the Tree of Life.  When is a viewpoint an
opposition and when is it simply an alternate viewpoint.  All
three universe models are based on experience as well as
tradition and logic.  All are based on 'as above so below' and so
on.  But is her universe model as given in the SD, a "core
teaching?" If so, then Point Loma must surely oppose the Tree of
Life, which HPB herself seemed to respect.

< GdP gives us the "correct process of study"

While I love GdP and have read just about everything he wrote, I
rather agree with Paul Johnson who once said that he preferred
HPB because she left a lot to the imagination, while GdP
expounded in much more detail, leaving little room left for
individual thought.  However, I would prefer you to say "better
process" or "safer process" or something of that nature, rather
than the word "correct" which inplies that all other approaches
are wrong.  Is this a Freudian slip here, or is this Point Lomas'
opinion of all other "processes of study?"

<theos-l has little of the traditional teachings

I have to agree with you.  I suspect that you and I are two who
have tried to keep such teachings alive on theos-l.  We need to
keep trying.  We don't always agree, but the chance to dialog and
explore is important.

<our opinion of the ML vs what does it really say

How can we possibly know what the MLs really say? Like everything
that comes into our experience, we interpret it by comparison to
our prevailing world view.  The fact that we each may interpret
passages differently is, I am afraid, a fact of life that we must
somehow endure.  The very fact that Adyar, Pasadena, & Point Loma
all accept the same MLs as the core theosophical teachings tells
me that we all interpret them differently.  But I agree with you
that we need to discuss our intepretations of the MLs nore, and
keep our opinions (I like that vs I don't like this) to a
minimum.

I hope that by answering these questions (which are honest and
not meant to bait or flame) I can get to understand the Point
Loma position better.  I have subscribed to The Eclectic
Theosophist for years but somehow it would often leave me cold.
One problem that I used to have when Emmett Small (I think?
anyhow, the editor a few years ago) wrote is that his articles
would put me to sleep - too long and too many big flowery words.
The newer format is much easier to read.  Even though I am
working on a PhD, I don't have the time to look words up in a
dictionary, or to feret out a meaning in an obscure sentence that
is a paragraph long (some Quest articles affect me this way too -
I measure this problem using the Fog Index, and while I am able
to throw out the fog as well as anyone, I prefer to KISS).
Anyway, my point is that while I have tried to read the
newsletter/magazine for years, I still have little understanding
of what Point Loma stands for or is against, etc.  except, like
the ULT and Pasadena, they seem to oppose the entire AB/CWL
model, as you called it.  Your posting shed a little light on
this, but raised these questions in my mind that need
clarification.

  Jerry S.