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

Re: Tourist or Pilgrim

Jun 24, 1996 10:06 PM
by Bee Brown

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>
> 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, -JRCPhew, that is practically a huge punch on the nose coming out of my computer.
Nobody is doing all those terrible things you say, that is purely a surface
maya or an aspect of the diversity of life being discussed. Of course
everyone is a pilgrim in the becoming, some have just decided to become a bit
sooner than others but there is no need to expect pilgrims on the path to
apologise for themselves to the yet-to-become, because they have chosen to
get on with it, rather than play for a bit longer. Diversity is the name of
the game in this physical plane and this is the plane referred to.
Universality is the underlying substance of all things but it does not mean
equality of all on this plane.
Here is what the post from Stan Treloar said in the recent articles posted
on here.
 "It is the
 intention of the Deity of our system that each of us
 shall find our way back to Him, the Source, by our own
 differing way. This is His Plan, and by the diversity He
 becomes perfected in a most broad way. Were it
 otherwise, there would be no need for Him to have
 created so many Monads. Why have a thousand or million
 people (read Souls or Monads) treading identical paths,
 having identical experiences, when to accomplish this,
 only one Monad would be needed, not a million."
And so we have people on all sorts of paths or still trying to discover which
one they wish to go on or not ready to get on a path yet but we may discuss
these differing choices of people without being accused of arrogance and so
rudely told that such discussions are beyond the pale. I take people as I
find them and if some want to tour around and check their options that's fine
by me but I am going to pretend to them or myself that they are doing
anything else. I find people who set themselves up as the protectors of the
rights of others to be just as arrogant because I think people can look after
themselves and are quite capable of dealing with arrogant theosophists
without the help of some who prefer the lowest common denominator in case we
offend anyone. When I don the tourist mode I may go to America for a cruise
around, a holiday, a looksee how the other half lives but I don't intend to
live there just because I am having a visit and seem fascinated with what I
see. In reincarnation it can be just the same. Some have elected or karma has
chosen for them to return this time as a tourist for reasons that we know
nothing off yet they may have begun their pilgrimage in prior lives. Who's to
know!!!! So if we do not acknowledge there is such a thing as tourists or
pilgrims in this physical plane we deny their truth to be what they wish to
be and after all what ever words we may use as descriptive of telling our
story, those words never hold the true meaning of what we wish to say.
Brotherhood is the ideal but that doesn't mean to say we cannot speak about
and acknowledge that it is not a fact in physical life yet and becoming
over-emotional over this fact does not change it. It is what we strive for
but if we were able to fully live like that, I guess we would not be here
discussing it.

[Back to Top]

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