[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Jun 22, 1996 01:53 PM
by Christopher Allen

At 01:55 PM 6/22/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>definition of "religion". Now, I do find statements like \: "truths which
>the founders unveiled" to be of a distinctly religious flavor because of the
>unavoidable air of reverence about them.

I didn't mean to imply any religious connotations to that statement.  I was
just stating that the founders laid various pieces of information out in
front of the viewer that weren't clearly seen before.  My personal opinion
is that most people look at absolute truth through a religious (or agnostic,
or scientific, etc) eyepiece.  Theosophy is a way of stepping back and
seeing both the eyepiece of religion and the abosolute truth together and

>>I think we may have a problem the day Theosophists start worshiping the
>>Solar Logos- but I see no problem with the acknowledgement of such entities.
>But Chris, many of them do, in particular people who follow in the footsteps
>of CWL who very clearly worshipped the "Masters" it's apparent in every word
>that he wrote. How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
>supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
>Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.

I never got the impression from any of Leadbeaters books that he worshipped
the masters.  As far as the prostration of people before Annie Besant, I
explain it with one word- craziness :-)  That is sad, I hope Theosophists
have evolved since then and don't do that anymore ;-)

>"signed on to things CWL wrote for her) and only 5% H.P.B. It is my belief
>that if one wishes to really study "Core Theosophy" one should concentrate
>not simply on Blavatsky herself, but upon such of her work that could not
>have been subject to severe revisionism in the years after Besant and
>Leadbeater assumed absolute control over the Society after Olcott's passing.

That's all I was trying to get across in my original message- that there is
a set of writings that could be considered to be "Core Theosophy".

>I really do think it would. "Basic theories", or "basic writings" do not
>carry the philological and semantic freight that the word "Doctrines" does.
>"Doctrines" is nearly synonymous with "Dogma" and they both have overtones

I've noticed that semantics are looked at very carefully on this thread.
They almost tend to overshadow the writer's original meaning at times.  I'll
try to be more selective with my words.  :-)

>It seems to me that "the way one looks at life" IS the process through which
>one lives it. If in fact "Religion" dictates how one lives one life...what
>then of those of us who are Agnostic (as I am) or Atheist?

Some form of the scientific process I would assume...or at least objectively
and openly (well, maybe not the atheist).

>If the entire Human Race sat around on their bottoms 24 hours a day and
>"meditated" the world would be an island of quiet and passivity, simply
>because no one was doing anything at all, but there would be no real harmony
>or peace. Real harmony an peace require active and intelligent participation
>and dedication and personal sacrifice. I adamantly believe that "good works"
>are infinitely more valuable than
>"Good Thoughts".

I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
has to be that "good thought."

>Chris: I am a theosophical historian and if you've been reading some of my
>other messages, and tuning into the thread on theos-list regarding CWL
>you'll find that some of the "theosophists who came before us" were insane,
>and some of them were terribly bad people.

I've been following the thread.  I've seen some of the key Theosophists
linked to various people who could be considered  bad.  But I haven't seen
any examples of any of these people doing anything "bad" other than being
associated with "bad" people.  Even if one considers them to be bad, that
still doesn't negate the importance of their work.

>>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
>>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
>>I may say so :-)
>It's clearly your absolute right to say so, it is also my absolute right to
>say that, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense.

Yes, I thought you might think as much.  It helps me to understand where
you're coming from.

>Chris, it is "revolutionary" to the Big "T" Theosophist because it is
>entirely catalytic, and if followed to it's logical end, it will completely
>overturn (that after all is the goal of revolution) their entire view of
>theosophy and themselves. That I think qualifies as "revolutionary". Don't you?

I don't equate the process of self-transformation with revolution.  I think
that as a Theosophist starts to transform themself into something new, that
their viewpoint of Theosophy will change, but I wouldn't call it
revolutionary.  I am curious though, since you don't seem to place great
value on meditation, what tool would one use to help with this

>Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
>as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
>it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative

Again, a semantics issue.

I am curious though, because I didn't completely understand your original
message, how is Theosophy a process?

*                    Christopher Allen                   *
*              Systems Integration Specialist            *
* 2448 East 81st Street     *
* Suite 3600             *
* Tulsa, OK  74137-4632             918.499.2801 Support *
*                                                        *
* Intelligent Logistics Solutions in OS/2 and Windows NT *

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application