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

Re: Tourist or Pilgrim

Jun 25, 1996 00:20 AM
by Bee Brown

m.k. ramadoss wrote:
> 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 sorry you see it that way, it wasn't how it was intended to be taken.
There was no mention about sinners or the saved that is your interpretation
of it. The tourist idea is only a way of talking about people who have not
made up their minds where they want to hang out or if they indeed want to
hang out anywhere as in relation to the people who have made a choice of some
sort in the direction of the spiritual whatever that spiritual idea may be.
It is a light hearted look at the situation.
I am sorry I even mentioned it and I will not make the same mistake again as
I forgot this list goes spare as soon as any name from the establishment is
mentioned. It is still real heavy round here.
See you round sometime.
>         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

[Back to Top]

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