Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01318)

At 12:00 PM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote:

>>Supposedly none of the biases of the various "little theosophies"
>>are cogent on this list.
>
>But one man's "little Theosophy" may be another's best and
>favorite presentation. And for those that consider others
>that follow Blavatsky as also carrying on the work of the
>Masters and their representatives, they would put describe
>things in more positive terms.

Eldon: By "Little Theosophies" i refer to groups whose feelings about their
group lead them to exclude anyone that doesn't match their paradigm. I am
explicitely referring to th ULT which I consider to be the most "Hassidic"
of Theosophical groups in the exclusivity. On both this list, and in
Theosophy International, people from these groups are not in a position to
enforce ther exclusivity. They have evey right to be as exclusive as they
please within their own paradigm but they have no right to impose their
ideas on others> They have every right to express their ideas of course, but
no right to accuse others of "heresy" or "blasphemy" when they are disagreed
with.
>
>As to THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL, it's freedom of belief is, and
>>has been made, perfectly clear. There are no heretics of
>>blasphemers in the regard of T.I., but certainly adding
>>"comparative theosophy" to the second object isn't the worst
>?Idea I've heard all week!
>
>It sounds like a good idea to me too. Especially as over
>the generations the various variants of the original
>Theosophy get wider apart in what they teach! <frown>
>
>-- Eldon

Eldon, do you grant that I am a sincere person, as sincere in my beliefs and
perceptions as anyone else? Well if you do, and I hope you do, then you must
have learned by now that I consider my view of theosophy as possibly the
most traditional as it is based upon my perceptions of theosophy of the 1875
- 1880 variety, with no influences from later on. My "cut-off" is
particularly intense in 1891 when HPB died. From then on I think there has
been nothing but variance and revisionism. It may be rigid, it may even be
limited, but it's hardly heretical. It may interest you to know that while I
totally reject CWL, I don't reject G de P at all, while i don't agree with
everything he says, I own, and have read a great many of his books. I do
reject the ULT as I find their actions and attitude too fundamentalist for
me. But that does not mean I reject WQJ, his books are some of the best
written on later Theosophy. I've even got two copies of Robert Crosbie's
book and he makes a lot of sense even if those who followed him don't. I'm a
Shaman, and a Helaer, and a Psychic, but first and foremost I'm an
intellectual, I too started with "book learning" but i've moved on. To make
what I'm saying totally unequivocable, I will say that I believe that
everything BHP wrote about attitude and goals is valid, about the rest I am
totally uncomfortable with some of it, and more than a little unsure about
much of it. That is all. I also, as I'm sure you know, think that each
person must develop his or her own version of any existential philsoophy,
relying on trust or faith in the perceptions of others is, I believe, a very
dangerous "rubbber crutch". likely to fail the person in extremity.

cordially
alexis
>
>
>