Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00426)

>Jerry S. writes>
>	I would love to see Theosophy become a haven for
>"truth-seekers."  It has always attracted these folk, but has never
>seemed to be able to hold them for long.  The problem?  In a word,
>technique.

Richard Ihle writes>
I agree.

There are probably some other things also.

One which comes to mind right away is something I call "GRADUAL DAWNING."
 After being attracted by THE THREE OBJECTS and the idea of the PERSONAL
QUEST, a particular type of member may start to get a funny feeling that
there could be a certain duplicity in the freedom-of-belief statements etc.
 Personally, this never bothered me very much until recent years when
possible signs of "filtering," and perhaps even political manipulation,
started to show up.  It might be that the ~dawning~ process is getting less
~gradual~ each year for newer members; indeed, it is my impression is that
they are in-and-out faster than ever.  It will be interesting to see what the
impact is of John Algeo's forthrightness in THE MESSENGER about the Society's
role in "helping the work of the Masters," the secret meaning of the The
Three Objects etc.  Perhaps the ~dawn~ will now start coming for people ~even
before~ they have a chance to sign the membership cards. . . .

J.S.>
>The bottom line here [regarding technique] is that if
>we want to attract, and keep, truth-seekers, then we have to give
>them more than books to read.

R.I.>
Yes, and I think you, in particular, would be an excellent person to go
around sharing some of your developmental experiences with Theosophical
audiences.

J.S.>
> The problem with this [sharing of individual theosophical insight] is that
>it smacks of psychism, the dreaded p word.  How are members to know if
>you are drawing your information from "higher" insight, or from kama-manas?
>The obvious answer here is that, by definition, "higher" insight will agree
with
>HPB and the MLs, and anything that differs must be psychism.

R.I.>
I think we must have had different experiences within the Society, Jerry.  In
all honesty, until recent years, I was getting super-encouragement for both
my writing and speaking--in particular from Joy, Dorothy, and every editor of
the AT since Virginia Hansen--and I was certainly not repeating things I had
read in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.   However, I was not known for being involved
with magic, so that might have been the difference.

J.S.>
>	What I want is a Theosophy-means-this, as a small subset
>of theosophy, however you want define little t theosophy (I like your
>definition just fine, but only for t, not T).

R.I.>
Again, we already have a ~Theosophy-means-this~.  It does not mean
~reincarnation~; it means ~what HPB says about reincarnation~.  It does not
mean ~karma~; it means ~what HPB says about karma~.

Capital-T ~Theosophy~ (for specific doctrine) is already here.  You do not
have to do a thing.  Indeed, you ~cannot~ do a thing.  For example, you
cannot from personal theosophical insight say something about reincarnation
which is slightly inconsistent with HPB and expect that your view will be
considered ~Theosophy~.  It won't.  You want the term defined in some more
expanded, sophisticated way.  It will not be.  Capital-T is well established
and already here.  It means what HPB said about all those topics you listed
in a previous post.  BIG ~T~ is already here, and it should probably be
inverted because it holds people in place so well when they sit on it. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle