Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00416)

ET to Paul

You seem to be giving a "good guy / bad guy" theme where the
negative and less-developed aspects of a theosophical student
go under one term and the positive and more-advanced aspects
under another term. I don't see this dichotomy. We're all
students with various strengths and weaknesses students in
study hall with no guru or teacher to conduct the class. This
is the status quo of theosophical groups as they are currently
being run.

RI

Or perhaps this is exactly the insult which is in most need of redress. Of
all the things about organized Theosophy which have amazed me over the years
none has amazed me more than this: that it begins with a call to the
Master-Wisdom in each of us and that it ends only after most of those who
remain have been reduced to the status of lowly students in a study hall.

Again: "I like to think of a theosopher as a person whose own transcendental
progress has resulted in at least some personal knowledge of certain things
otherwise
inaccessible." Who else really belongs in a theosophical society? Someone
whose purpose is merely to study and perhaps worship those figures distant
in time and space who had such progress and knowledge? No what individuals
already know for themselves but can not yet satisfactorily say is the whole
and entire reason theosophers seek one another out in societies and out of
societies. *Theosophist* would be a good term for those who just sort of
like the idea of the real thing.

Let us meet as kings and queens or not at all. . . .

I like Paul's attitude actually.

Richard Ihle