Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00126)

>Rich:
>
>>Well, I don't know how you define core teachings. I define them for myself
>>as the teachings of HPB, William Q. Judge and the Mahatma Letters.
>
>I am with you here Rich. I don't know how Theosophist define core
>teachings. I have an idea about Primary Source material in Theosophy some
>you mentioned above. But how is the source material approached and
>interpreted. Like I mentioned in my long post to Eldon. Are the teachings
>true literally, spiritually, devotionally, for faith and practise?
>
>>In all that body of literature, I don't believe the words "group soul" ever
>>appear, nor can I seem to locate other words which mean "group soul."
>
>Here is an example of one of the difficulties I find. Group soul, assume
>hypothetically -it is not in source documents. Does that make is untrue?
>Are there things that point to it in the source documents. Do the source
>documents contain exhaustive spiritual truth? In what sense are they true.
>That is the central question. How can these writings be honored and
>utilized without being worshipped?
>
>BTW, I like the metaphor of Group Soul. I connect it to the Platonic
>tradition and maybe gnostic thought. Is that older tradition of Plotonius
>or Ammonius (Key p.5) to be considered authoritative too?

Art, Jerry H-E and Rich,

I've come to the conclusion that this idea of "Source Teachings" is wrong
and I don't really know where it started, but it may become the cause of
lots of dissension. You want to include certain writings within a select
group and by doing so you include certain people in a select group and leave
others out.

This approach is so divisive and judgemental and not at all keeping with the
spirit of theosophy which is to "find the source within."

Who is more qualified to give a lesson in humility than C.W.L.? I don't
know where anyone's writings can compare with his on such simple practical
lessons and advice. Isn't it beneficial to have someone prepare us for what
lies ahead?

If only enough people would practice humility we wouldn't even have a need
to maintain the aloofness of some writers over others. The beauty and
urgency of theosophy is in its wholeness. A fair many authors have given
their points of view in books and they have my thanks and awe at times for
planting their feet so firmly on the path as to let no one shake them off.
We can't shake off our fellow travellers on the path by denoting some
writings as core or source. They're still there. They have a place right
there in front of you, closer and more familiar to the teachers and the
teaching.

I feel as if there are people who are trying to cut ahead in line. If these
people don't deserve our love and affection and even a commitment of one's
life and work, then what will happen when the next generation finds us? I
hate to think of it.
In theosophy, I find wholeness. A fresh point of view is welcome here. It
was meant to be a meeting ground of all "spiritual" points of view. Please
don't try to cut out others or their ideas or inventions. It's stimulation
por favour. I'm THEIR follower. I can't measure up to them even, let alone
seem to meet and know Kuthumi or Morya. If humility were not essential in
living and not encouraged, we'd probably be taking the hard knocks by being
beat on the head by the likes of Paul Johnson. (It still bewilders me how he
ever managed to do what he did. Paul, you're the greatest.)

I think there's a great mystery about the other kingdoms of nature, but
instead of looking at them as living around us here on this fourth globe,
couldn't we try seeing them as their own kingdom (meaning they are king on
the fifth globe) right ahead of us? There they reign and all life responds
to their special vibratory note. Here, well, here they're just shistas and I
wouldn't be surprised if it was dead men's decaying bodies which made they
exist the way they do here. Group souls are a much more pleasant thought
than man's body parts and remnants.

Besides, the Mahatmas do teach "individuality" as a specifically human
trait, so I think "group" goes quite well beside it, as an alternative sort
of existence.