Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)
Jun 17, 1996 03:10 PM
by m.k. ramadoss
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
> At 12:02 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >> We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
> >>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
> >>Daniel ...
> >Well, I have made my own views very plain over the years,
> >both here and on Peacenet. My feeling is that the core
> >teachings as given out, are exoteric and simplistic--
> >suitable perhaps for Joe Sixpack, but covering over
> >many deeper and more esoteric meanings. I am not
> >sure, but I think Eldon agrees with me on this. My premise,
> >basically, is that reincarnation and karma, for an example
> >of core teachings, are a whole lot more complicated than
> >what we find in the literature. The problem is that the
> >literature appears to contain step-by-step processes
> >and descriptions, and would seem to have addressed
> >karma and reincarnation in depth. My view is that this
> >is an illusion. Karma is *not* rewards and punishments--
> >this is merely how we as human beings perceive it.
> >Karma is causality, the same causality that we find
> >in physics with the exception of its application on other
> >planes rather than just the physical. And causality (order)
> >has "holes" in it, which I call the Chaos Factor. Karma
> >also must be seen as both individual and collective,
> >and the collective part works on the mental level under
> >very complicated telepathic stategems that we only
> >barely recognize. All of the other core teachings are
> >the same way. They appear to be completely discussed
> >in the literature, but this is simply not so; they are all
> >much more complicated than they appear when put
> >into words.
> > Jerry S.
> While I do not agree with everything you say, I do agree with most of it.
> The problem, as I see it, and obviously as John Cooper sees it too, is that
> when one of us "small 't' theosophists" makes a complicated and complete
> statement of our views, complete with alternatives and supporting arguments
> etc. And JRC has done so quite voluminously, and as I have been doing in my
> ongoing discussions with Alan Bain, that is a thing which is completely
> ignored. I thought I had an ongoing public discussion with Martin Euser
> regarding my published pamphlet "Ruminations", but only the other day
> discovered it had been private. That, of course, was my own error for being
> so computer illiterate. But now the ruminations string is public, and I plan
> to continue the discussion of those subjects on alt.theosophy (Please do try
> to join us there).
> Now it seems to me that Daniel Caldwell will accept no "supporting
> arguments" that are not quotes from "Theosophical Literature". These I am
> not willing to use as I believe a good deal of "Theosophical Literature" to
> be on the level of Sunday School Homilies.
> I, for one, would like to see more serious, advanced level, discussions on
> Theos-list. We had pretty well agreed to commence an on-going discussion of
> the effects of CWL on theosophy....I haven't seen much except for Doss's
> spirited defense of Leadbeater. I for one, hesitate to respond in that case
> for Doss is what I call a "true believer", and I don't think he is
> interested in facts, that is in this instance ONLY. He's such a nice person
> one wouldn't want to really hurt his feelings in any way. I wish he'd read
> "Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett, as I have, and that might help him, he
> has, after all an analytical mind.
Alexis: Thanks for your comments. FYI, I have had a copy to
Tillett's book for several years. I have no reason yet to change my mind
about the good CWL and AB have done for TS and countless members of TS,
> I do wish we'd have more serious discussion on this list but one can
> scarcely get it going. What do you think can be done?
> alexis dolgorukii
> > Member, TI
Peace to all living beings.
M K Ramadoss
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application