Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl01104)

According to Mark A. Foster:
>
> I enjoyed reading the short posting on Anthroposophy as a form of
> Theosophy (which of course it is) and the need for a dialogue framed
> around commonly held ideas. As the writer alluded to, the ecumenical
> movement has made some important inroads in this direction - and not
> only among Protestants (viz., the National Conference of Christians and
> Jews). There is certainly no reason why this model could not be followed
> among groups with Theosophical roots.

It has been followed, with some success, among the TS-Adyar,
the TS-Pasadena, the ULT, and the Temple of the People
(Halycon, CA). But there is a reason why it would be difficult
with Steiner disciples. Steiner said some very ugly things
about HPB, gave no source for his information, but seemed to be
echoing C.J. Harrison's The Transcendental Universe in his
"occult captivity" theory. It is one thing to honor HPB and
her teachers while claiming to go beyond them; this is what
Bailey and numerous others do. It is quite another to base a
large chunk of your teachings on hers, but to deny the
connection and say insulting things about her.
>
> From my perspective, discussions between, say, the Theosophical
> Society, the United Lodge, and the Anthroposophical Society should be on
> the level of the Noosphere, the Akasha, the Kingdom of Heaven Within,
> the (Neo-) Platonic world of forms, or New Thought's Universal Mind. In
> short, what is the commonality of mystical experience and how can it be
> tangibly expressed in service to humanity? As I see it, the the emphasis
> should be on mystical awareness and its practical implications - not on
> the rational plane of linguistic contradictions.

To some extent this would seem to be what the Parliament in
1993 accomplished?

Welcome aboard, Mark. I hope we live up to your first
impressions :)

Paul