|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Oct 24, 1995 08:07 AM
by Jerry Schueler
Eldon:<What we really need, if it would be possible, is a delicate balance between dogma and doctrine, with people in charge of our organizations that are trained in the Philosophy and able to apply the wisdom of Solomon to the organizational problems that arise at times.> What we really need, it seems to me, is experience, which means living the teachings rather than just thinking about them. When we live them, dogma evaporates. But we still need doctrine because our human mind still has a need to explain/express our experiences in terms of visual and analytical models that we can understand and communicate. People "in charge of our organizations" should be living examples of theosophy. Eldon:< The study of karate involves training and practice sessions. The study of Zen involves sitting zazen. And the study of Theosophy involves awakening the inner teacher and the sense of the divine in our everyday life; e.g. the approach to chelaship.> Exactly! If we all did this, many organizational problems would disappear. Also, we would be more tolerant and understanding of folks like JRC. Eldon:<I would not consider either one as superior to the other in terms of "revelation", but would carefully consider any differences between their writings, and judicate in my own mind any apparent conflicts.> You have mentioned this idea before. Can you give us one instance for such a conflict? I have read both and am not aware of any. Jerry HE:<That would have to be discussed since it represents am assumption that probably contrasts with those held by the HPB student. > This brings up a very important issue that goes to very heart of "source teachings" versus secondary or neo teachings. If Purucker, or anyone else, expands on HPB without contradicting her, then why would this cause any problems with "the HPB student?" Are you of the opinion that if HPB didn't say it, it can't be true? Anything not spoken by HPB is false? It seems to me that by expanding her 7-globe 4-plane model into a 12-globe 7-plane model, for example, does not conflict with what HPB says and so where is the problem? This is especially true in light of the fact that she admitted to holding some teachings back. Jerry HE:<>>We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a separate choice as to *which* individuals are representatives of the Masters. > Unfortunately, one can represent the Masters in one subject while totally screwing up another subject. So, our discrimination must go farther than that between people; we also need to discriminate between the writings of the same individual, and yes, I am thinking about CWL here. Eldon:< But an understanding of the Teachings, apart from an initial intellectual study of the general doctrines, requires some inner development and resulting personal insight. It's not something that can be argued from an historical standpoint because it goes beyond what can be written down in a book meant for public consuption.> I agree, Eldon. Well said. Jerry S.