Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00093)

Lewis will probably laugh at me because of the fact that I told Daniel H.
to do some reining:) Anyway, I would make a distinction between reining in
hate literature and intolerance - from reining in personal passion and
commitment to a particular viewpoint. I have gotten the most of this group
precisely when we do bicker when our feelings are on the top and get worked
through; not on the ideational level but on the level or understanding and
learning limited tolerance.

There is obviously a dispute about psychic experience and the founders
attitudes toward it but the same old appeal to tradition, experience,
reason and revelation keep showing that these things bind us to the
persepectives we have. They should, but the more we learn about how we
configure the authority (or authenticating )issues the better we will
understand each other.

For those rooted in experience and who have had direct encounters with
psychic phenomena I am sure that Blavatsky herself is not as important as
the encounter. I am sure that they would not cower if someone says
Blavatsky says don't dabble in spiritualism. So what? That's a "Blavatsky
(or the Masters) tells me so arguement".,they might respond. Some rooted in
tradition will go the full root and say well it is not enough that
Blavatsky or whoever, said it. They will try to reconstruct why they said
it. I recall reading that Blavatsky was first published in a spiritualist
magazine. So lets figure out what the "situation in life" is that caused
the founders to be wary of spiritualism. But more importantly lets shine
the light on our principles of interpretation so we can know why we are
saying what we are saying. I see this happening in the dialogues and my
heart is lightened. Personally I like the commitments of people on the list
and while we can sometimes be defensive I think that we are not ill
meaning.

Arthur Paul Patterson