Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00077)

According to Eldon B. Tucker:
>
> Granted that we may get in trouble when we do it ourselves. And

It isn't exploring the path by oneself that worries me; after
all that *is* what we must do. But rather accepting any dead
teacher as an authority not to be contradicted. If we're in a
personal relationship there is the possibility of feedback
about potential misunderstandings. But in the absence of a
guru we need some kind of feedback from our associates or our
own judgment that can override what we get out of books.

> that is exactly what we're left up to until we make further
> progress in carrying through with the intent of Theosophy forming
> the cornerstone of future Western religions. Without established
> practices to follow we're in the position of looking elsewhere
> *or in helping formulate the one-or-many future theosophical
> religions*.

"Cornerstone of the future religions of humanity" does not to
me necessarily mean not-yet-born religions. Theosophy
has been the cornerstone of a global approach to spirituality
which will continue to reverberate in Buddhism Hinduism
Christianity etc. Even if the TS were to become extinct
tomorrow and HPB's books all go out of print and her name be
forgotten the changes already wrought will continue to help
shape the future of religion.
>
> found. Any approach that keeps its focus solely on the spiritual
> or intellectual/spiritual does not run this risk for anything
> that you do can only be beneficial. There *are* valid approaches

Here I disagree most sharply. There are plenty of approaches
that focus solely on the spiritual or intellectual/spiritual that are not
beneficial but rather the reverse IMO. Won't name them but
I think on reflection you'll grant the possibility. After all
remember what KH said about 2/3 of the evils that afflict
humanity. It was religion not psychism to which he
attributed them.
>