Re: doctrinal and historical approaches
Oct 20, 1995 12:08 PM
by Jerry Schueler
Eldon, thanks for defending the position of us revelationers.
I appreciate all of the theosophical historians, but so far,
I agree with you and can't see how history can help us
understand or live the Teachings any better. Without
assimilating the heart-doctrine, its seems to me that all you
have is the dead letter. Meanwhile, I am reading your
fencing with Jerry HE with great interest. On the other
hand, I am pleased to hear Jerry's historical position
as it allows us all to see where the historians are
coming from. For one thing, I have to say that the
historians seem to have the healthiest perspective
of the Mahatmas. Historians don't idolize them, or
deify them, as many non-historians do.
Thanks to both of you.
Question to Jerry HE - How do you envision that
defining 'theosophy" as the "ancient wisdom" is
going to help solve our communication problems
on theos-l? You seem to be defining one nebulous
word with two other nebulous words, which doesn't
But I do think if we can agree on a list of doctrines
like reincarnation, cycles, and karma, that we
will be getting at least somewhere. So far, we can't even
agree on what are the "source teachings" let alone what
are the "source doctrines." And, maybe it really
doesn't matter (?).
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application