[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Phists vs. Phers

Nov 24, 1995 05:09 AM
by M K Ramadoss

At 075200 PM 11/24/95 -0500 Jerry S wrote:

>Eldon:<. I agree there is a lack of teaching
>>applied spirituality in T.S. groups. The groups tend to limit
>>themselves to a superficial study of the books and sometimes not
>even to that!
> This was my point. Something has to done
> if we are going to survive into the 2000s.
>>JRC may be saying "don't waste your time there follow me I've
>>found gold over on this hillside".
> I don't think that JRC was ever saying this. I think I
>understand his feeling because I have offered what I thought
>were some neat ideas only to have everyone come down hard
>on me too. However my reaction has been to re-write the
>ideas in other words and then try again after the depression
>passes in the same spirit that Eldon has championed. I think
>that owing to the nature of theos-l this is probably the best
>approach to take and I had hoped that JRC would so the same.
>>Not of "personal experiences of the spiritual" just of psychical
>>experiences and particularly of the cultivation of the psychical
>>and the practice of the occult arts. The idea is to leave all
>>that to other groups with gurus qualified to teach and oversee
>>such practices among their followers.
> This demonstrates what JRC was talking about.
>Many theosophists not just you Eldon think that they can
>tell the difference between "higher" and "lower" experiences
>and then accept the one which few if any will actually claim
>and totally reject the other out of hand. This black and white
>attitude goes all the back to HPB but was especially
>emphasized by Judge. If I mentioned a particular spiritual
>insight you may or may not accept it. But chances are that
>you would think about it objectively before reaching a
>conclusion. However if I added that I received this information
>from an Angel that I conversed with you would reject the
>insight out of hand a priori because you view all Angels
>as "lower" sources psychism etc and thus no truth can
>come from it. I think that this kind of "shooting from the hip"
>is what JRC was really objecting to.
>> We certainly should be free to enhance
>>and go beyond the fragements of occult truth given us by the
>>Masters. But we must also carefully consider the source of
>>such information.
> Agreed. But I submit that there is intuition and
>there is intuition. Some buddhi-manas material is right on
>while others is bogus maybe we just think it is buddhi-manas?
>There are no labels on the ideas that come to us. And again to
>"consider the source" with most theosophists means to reject
>all kama-manas material. Of course who is to say if something
>is kama-manas or buddhi-manas anyway. Except for some
>obvious examples only a handful of people would know the difference
>in those "grey" areas. All that I am suggesting is that theosophists
>look at the ideas provided by others objectively first and then decide
>its truth or falsehood. Try to see a little grey in between all that black
>and white.
> Jerry S.

I think that looking at all facts and ideas very objectively without
being distorted by our training reading indoctrination personal ideas
etc. is a indeed a very difficult and necessary task indeed. How else one is
going to see a truth when it presents itself.

There is a story in the life of Sankaracharya the greatest reformer
of Hinduism. He was on his way to a temple and there was on his way an low
class man. Shankaracharya's followers who were with him asked the low class
man to get out of the way. Soon the low class man revealed himself as the
God himself. I do not vouch for the full truth of story. But the lesson
seems to be that with an open mind if the low class man was just looked at
as a fellow human the problem would have never arisen. So much for being
blinded by tradition etc.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application