Re: Phists vs. Phers
Nov 24, 1995 06:47 AM
by Jerry Schueler
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
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
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application