Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00082)

In message <m0u6XFT-000McDC@slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii
<alexei@slip.net> writes
>
>Chuck:
>
>That's really good stuff [...] ! I agree with every word of it except
>that it's my belief that Gautamas ideas didn't survive him for more
>that say 20 minutes and Christianity didn't survive it's actual
>founders past the Council of Nicea.

If that long.  At least until 325 there was a large degree of freedom of
interpretation.  With Constantine threatening unpleasant deaths to the
bishops he ordered to meet at Nicea, it was conform or else.

> I also agree that except for you, we are all far too
>concerned with respectability, and perhaps even far too concerned with
>science.

H.P.B. was soooo respectable!  Huh!  I still don't know what "Science"
is - there are individual sciences, but biology has little in common
with philology.  Theosophy can at least be defined, albeit loosely.

> What the world needs now is good livable answers to peoples
>existential questions. They don't get them, and right now, today, they don't
>get them from Theosophy at all. And I may be wrong but I really think that's
>what theosophy was really intended to do, answer people's existenial
>questions and alleviate their pain and fear.

The *former* members of my old Bristol UK lodge who walked away after
the recent witch-hunting debacle are all people who were/are looking for
just that.  AND - they are still meeting with a view to finding answers
for and within themselves.  At the moment most of them won't sign up
even for TI because it contains the word "theosophy" in it, bar two of
us.

> And, as far as I see it, most
>of what folks argue about here and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with
>that. People are afraid they're going to die, and guess what? They are!
>Theosophy could help with that, but it doesn't. Shamanism does actually help
>with that,but it's far too obscure at present to help many people. Theosphy
>is far too much like the Shakers. How to prevent the same thing from
>happening? Theosophy as it is represented by the intellectual sterility that
>regularly appears on this list and in theosophical publications, is not
>going to do anything but drive young folk away! Discussions on "devachan"
>and Manvantaras, and Nirmanakaya Buddhas, may be fun for elderly
>Theosophists but the young say "So What?" and go their merry way. If they
>all say "so What?" and go their merry way, theosophy is a very dead duck.

Actually, I think the young just say "What?" when they hear these jargon
(to them) words.  The technical "theosophical" terms mean nothing when
the are simply produced like rabbits out of a hat as "explanations."

Tell people there is "somewhere" you go to when you die, and they will
be interested to at least ask "Where?" - and we *then* have a chance to
be of service.
>
>alexis
>
Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk