Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00280)

Richard Taylor,

>Man, I am so confused! I signed on to Theos-L just last week
>and I feel like I am on another planet. I don't get all the
>"Christ" talk and "Son of God" stuff and Hierarchy and Plan and
>all that. Is any of this even distantly related to Theosophical
>teaching?
>
>Rich

 It depends upon which theosophy you are interested in.
Different people have different perceptions of what it is. I
came up with five categories that seem to more or less include
everybody:

 1. Theosophy is an approach to the development of a
philosophy. This approach has its origins in the Ptolemaic
period in Alexandria. (I've seen no interest expressed in this
one on theos-l, but it enjoys some academic interest.)

 2. The philosophical systems developed from the above
approaches such as those of: Boehman, Baader and Swedenbourg.
(I've seen one or two token mentions of this over the past two
years, but no takers.)

 3. An abstruse philosophical system attributed to H.P.
Blavatsky and/or her teachers. (There seems to be about a half
dozen people with any genuine interest in this.)

 4. A revelation expressed through H.P. Blavatsky in the late
nineteenth century and expanded upon by later writers. (The bulk
of theos-l subscribers seem to be here).

 5. Theosophy is everything--or at least, anything you fancy
it to be. (This definition seems to be well represented too).

 If your interests fall under classes 1,2,3 (and I know they
do) welcome to the (numerically) under represented class, and
please keep writing. There are a few of us out here who are
interested in your ideas.

>> ..And why is it that we are thinking Leadbetter is a good
>>guide to the
>> astral plane? ...And what are his qualifications?
>>
>> Richard P. Taylor
>> richtay@aol.com
>
>I can't wait for the answer to this one! He was very good at
>embroidering the teaching with his own speculations when he was
>here - maybe he has a better perspective now he's there ...
>Alan

 Ooooh! I can't wait for the answer to this one either. :-)

JRC

> Oh, yes, and speaking of prayer, while CWL as well as other
>early Theosophists either did not pray or engage in too much
>ceremony (or at least arrived at broader than normal notions of
>those things) ...

 It seems to me that C.W.L. was very involved in ceremony.
He was Bishop of the LCC (which was brought into the T.S. to be a
vehicle for Krishnamurti's new religion), and performed mass
regularly. He was also a 33rd degree mason and brought co-
masonry into the T.S. C.W.L. also gives a description of Oscar
Kollestrom's initiation ceremony in ~Masters and the Path~ which
(by the way) has a very British format.

Rich

>It's amazing: dare to post a quote from one of H.P. Blavastky's
>books on a Theosophy board, of all places, and the board erupts
>in a furor.
>
>What could possibly be so uproarious about words from the
>Founder of Theosophy in the modern West, HPB?

 Now let that be a lesson to you! :-))

Ann Bermingham

>At the Akbar Lodge in Chicago, both the Secret Doctrine, Mahatma
>Letters and Alice Bailey have been used as discussion material
>in one meeting. I have had a problem with this. The material
>seems to naturally flow together, probably because those in
>charge, who are wiser and abler than I, have the ability to see
>the common thread between them and can sort out that which is
>uncommon.

 Or perhaps by assuming that these three works are consistent
with each other, they "see" threads that don't exist. It is
interesting that you "have had a problem with this." Please
explain.

Liesel,
>PS to Rich
>
>From here on in I will no longer answer any of your
>communications. Your trends of thought are absolutely useless,
>& I have something more productive to do with my time, than
>argue with the likes of you.>
>
>Liesel

 Here we go again!

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu