Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00836)

alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>
> At 11:31 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you 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.
>
> Hooray for YOU! That's right on! Joy Mills is an arrogant bitch! I agree
> with everything below as well.
> alexis

And so are you. There is no need for this sort of rudeness and this is
theos-buds not theos-l so I am not replying to any more of this sort of
'discussion'.
Bee
> >
> >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
> >
> >