Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00832)

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, JRC wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
>
> > Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
> 	<snip>
> > In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> > sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
> 	<snip>

	What an interesting concept? No different from that held by some
fundamental sects which splits humanity into two groups - sinners and
those saved by a belief etc.

	I am very sorry to say that I have run into Theosophists (long time and
held offices) whose actions are worse than that of ordinary unlettered
simple persons I have run into. It is not the fault of Theosophy.


>
> Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
> there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
> arbitrary thought that is.
>
> Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
> almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
> organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
> is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
> miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
> particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
> needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
> actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
> - but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
> elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
> believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
> million for instances) a person's full immersion in
> child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
> lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
> their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
> - is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
> *avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
> but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
> *down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
> *more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
> experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
> they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
> "spirituality"?

> 	Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
> *intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
> discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
> 							Regards, -JRC
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss