Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01173)

At 06:05 PM 5/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>After carefully having read the postings of a week's time I think I have come
>to an understanding of what's going on here on theos-l on a deeper level.
>Of course there's the question of the more 'experientially-oriented' versus
>the more 'theoretical-philosophically' inclined people. That has been so for
>years. It now seems evident to me that there is actually an incompatibility
>of characters that is manifesting strongly here on this list.
>People shouting at each other - having intrinsic difficulties of understanding
>each other motives. Well, it's not unique - it happens every day.
>My main concern with this is this: are we going to spend a lot of time
>and energy in continuing this debate (rather than discussion) or can we find
>a way to bridge the obvious gap that exists in perceptions of what theosophy
>is all about?
>I'm not so sure that this bridging will take place on this list - it might
>happen. But it will require a great deal of effort of all subscribers, I guess.

Alexis comments: Well Martin, I certainly hope we can find a way to make our
debate less rancorous. But I do think that the differences between the
"experientialist-revisionists" and the "Literalist-traditionalists" is
probably unbridgeable. I, for instance, believe their is much of inestimable
value in the original programme of the theosophical movement circa
1875-1878-9, as it was expressed in the Motto of the society, and it's three
objects, and primarily in "Isis Unveiled". Like Rudolf Steiner and many
others, I am far less enthusiastic regarding the Mahayana Buddhist
orientation taken by the Society after its removal to India. I am totally
appalled by what is now being presented as "Core Theosophical doctrine".
That is why I see the abyss as unbridgeable, when I mention that I do not
accept most of the Secret Doctrine as valid, it is just too much of an
assault on the sensibilities of the "Literalist-traditionalist" and they
regard my entire position as Anti-Theosophy, which in my eyes it isn't but
in their eyes it is. As my Grandmother used to say: "Wie Kommt der Katz uber
die wasser?"

>Well, we'll see. Now to the idea of alt.theosophy:

>Well, excellent idea! I would love to see a newsgroup (that would be the idea-
>wouldn't it?) dealing with real people's experiences - experiences of near
>death for example, experiences with angels, etc. alongside with some guidance,
>explanations, warnings, comfortings, etc. by some experienced people, i.e.
>by those who have a fair share of  real-life experience of the 'beyond'.
>This era is different than ones before - many people have witnessed and
>experienced phenomena they do not fully understand. In my opinion it could
>be beneficial if such a newsgroup were to be created for such purposes.
>
>Ideally there would be an opportunity to integrate such experiences
>into a newly phrased theosophy- a kind of theosophy which is in the forefront
>of what's happening on this planet. Not that I don't think there are many
>valuable ideas and teachings in old-style theosophy - there are!
>But ask yourself a simple question: 'how can theosophy be of more value
>to the current world?, 'how can we better reach out to those who want to
>understand more of what's happening on this globe and in *their* lives?'.
>Wouldn't this involve just some of the things I mentioned before?
>In short: theosophy must be made more *practical*, dealing with issues
>that are important to people *today*.
>After all, *experience* is what's life is all about. The world is moving on
>and so must theosophy, will it be able to reach the minds and hearts of people.

Martin: I couldn't have described my intentions for Alt.Theosophy better, or
more clearly. That's exactly what I dream of it being, no dogma, just
personal experience and 21st century ideas and language. Please come in and
help us in this endeavor.
>
>These are just some preliminary reflections and are not meant to discard
>the essence of theosophy - a very noble ethical system indeed whose first
>principles should be promulgated indeed- but understood
>by few, partly due to its very fragmented nature and lack of recognizable
>concepts and experiences. Where is the integration with transpersonal
>psychology, true healing-practices, etc.? Shouldn't there be an effort
>in this direction? The realms of the psyche and spirit will ultimately
>have to be 'mapped' and explained more fully in order to guide people, I think.
>Recognition is one of the keywords as good old Plato emphasized.

Martin: Please ask Alan Bain for a copy of my monograph "RUMINATIONS ON THE
SUBJECT OF THEOSOPHY" This deals with the values of basic theosophy. You may
know that I am a very active Shaman and Healer, and have been active in the
alternative religious community for some twenty years now. What I've been
trying to do all that while is introduce theosophy into those
movements.That's why I am so glad about Alt.Theosophy and probably why I get
into so much "trouble" on this list. But I do think it's necessary to
articulate a 21st century view in this 19th century venue.
>
>
>So, who else has been thinking about this kind of integration?

Now you know.
>
>
>Martin
>Member of TI
>
>Alexis, Member TI, FTSA
>
>
>
>
>
>