Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl01113)

Jerry S. wrote:

> Rich reminds me of myself some 20 years ago in his theosophical
> zeal. Back then, I wrote to Grace Knoche something to the effect
> that I thought theosophy was the sole exponent of truth, and she
> chastised me to the effect that theosophy was but one of many
> paths. This, coming from the Leader of the Pasadena TS, made
> me stop and think. I am sure that Rich will come to see this too
> some day."

I have never, EVER said anything like "Theosophy [or HPB] are the sole
exponents of truth." I defy you to find one post or anything I've published
that has hinted at this. In fact, it seems so clear that I am not laying all
authority for truth on Theosophy, that I can only understand it as willful
distortion.

Rather, the possibility raises itself in my mind that what I write is
threatening, because I stick to the original Theosophy that was presented.
 Because this is threatening, I must be dismissed with convenient labels like
"fundamentalist" "too young" etc.

How long does one need to be in the Theosophical Movement before one is a
"grown up"? While many others have been in Theosophy longer than I have, I
should think that after my first decade in the Work, I am no longer a novice
or unfamiliar with the basic texts, history, currents, etc. So the "too
young" label really won't wash.

As for "fundamentalist," I ground myself on the original material, as tried,
true, and lasting. All later students follow from HPH, Mr. Judge and the
Masters who stand behind them. The original material is the foundation of
modern Theosophy, and I don't apologize for standing on it, in order that I
might see farther. This does not mean there is nothing else BESIDES this
foundational material that is valuable, that is a nonsensical attitude. The
20th century is full of good, valuable work by solid, idealistic, and
clear-seeing men and women.

But if people find my opinions offensive, PARTICULARLY when I reference HPB
or Mr. Judge as a source, I say, hit the <delete> key. I use it plenty, in
most cases it works fine.

I also don't see that I spend a lot of time labeling folks. When Brenda and
I argue, and we often do, I take her up on the ideas and arguments she puts
forth. I don't try and nail her as a woman, or as a CWL fan, or as any
"thing" else. That would be grossly unfair and de-humanizing. She is a
student, I am a student, we argue.

Likewise, Jerry, I have never labeled you to my knowledge, trying to dismiss
your point of view by fitting you in a neat little box like Orientalism did
to Asian cultures last centuries.

If you want to discuss ideas, sources, reasons, thoughts, texts, etc., let's
go for it, but I see no need to attack me personally with confining labels.

Rich