Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples
Jun 02, 1996 11:51 PM
by alexis dolgorukii
At 06:45 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
> I just finished my dissertation, and at long last, have my PhD.
>Among other goodies, this will doubtless sell several more copies of
>my books (I am retired and need the money folks) all by itself.
> The fact that magic is also a two-edged sword is exactly
>why I started writing my books, Chuck. I watched too many people
>burning their fingers through ignorance.
Alexis d.: Jerry, my warmest congratulations to Dr.Schueler! I've been
following (lurking- us wolves are good at that) your sever al postings and I
want to say that they are all wise and very well stated.
> There may be a few Joe Sixpacks who stay with Theosophy,
>but I still don't think that the membership will ever be up there where
>it was before the infamous K incident. I hope that I am wrong.
Alexis d.: Jerry, you are right as usual. They will not come to theosophy as
it exists today, so the question of their "staying" is moot.
> When I came into Theosophy, I too tried to take the
>literature literally, and very seriously.
Alexis d.: Has there ever been a Theosophist who didn't? I know I did.
But by that time, I had already been initiated into Knuckling Yoga, and had
>mystical experiences to hand, so I was able to sift a lot of
>chaff from wheat right off the bat. Thus I was unable to ever
>be a real sheep. Maybe a wolfish-sheep, or a sheepish-wolf?
> The root problem here is that our worldview has to
>address, and assimilate, our experiences. If we have certain
>experiences that are simply not covered in the TS literature,
>then we must expand our concept of Theosophy to address
>that. If we have experiences that conflict with TS literature or
>Core Teachings, then our worldview must also address
>that--because we must always tweak our worldview to account
>for our experiences. The only alternative is to ignore those
>experiences and such repression always leads to pathological
> I have been successful with this for the most part,
>by employing the terms exoteric and esoteric to ideas or
>teachings. Now I know that both you and Alexis don't care for
>those terms, but they really have been a big help to me. Karma
>and reincarnation, for example, as taught by Judge and G de P
>are very acceptable to me as long as I consider them to be
>exoteric teachings. In other words, the way they are taught in
>the TS literature is simply not the way I experience or
>intuitively see them. So, I call my own view esoteric, and thus
>can assimilated both the literature and my experiences into my
>worldview very nicely. Otherwise, I probably would have left
>Theosophy a long time ago. Eldon is right when he says
>that the words of the Core Teachings point to a body of esoteric
>(wordless) teachings that have to be experienced.
> So, after we bring in a bizzillion Joe Sixpacks and
>their families, how do we get them away from a literal interpretation?
> Jerry S.
> Member, TI
Jerry: We keep them away from a "literal interpretation of the literature",
by simply keeping them away from the literature until they have been warned
that it is entirely exoteric (to use your definition which is a good one)
and symbolic and not to be understood literally. It is also imperative to
provide literature that is not so entirely misleading. Which is the
motivation for my crusade" against Leadbeater and the others who, I feel, a
primarily responsible for the misleading nature of the literature, and also,
in Leadbeater's case, for the Krishnamurti debacle. How would Krishnamurti
have turned out had his entire childhood not been blighted?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application