Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00964)

Martin, you seem angry at "a lot of other `process' theosophists
who have not presented *arguments* against the Theosophical
teachings."  Alexis and Jerry S. are exempt, you say.  But since process
Theosophist is AFAIK Alexis's term, and no one else has
explicitly claimed it, I don't understand who these miscreants
are who ought to have presented arguments against the
Theosophical teachings.  They are the people who are "too smart
to believe any of this core theosophy nonsense," but who are
they?  You yourself say that you regard such a division as very
simplistic and "this labeling as a kind of *insult*" yet you
seem to be lashing out at some unnamed people you are dividing
off and labeling.  I just don't get it.

On the chance that for some reason I may be one of the people
targeted by your complaint, let me state that I have absolutely
no inclination to present arguments against the Theosophical teachings
as such.  I have presented arguments about the literalistic, fundamentalistic
way some Theosophists approach them.  And the stultifying effect this has had
on the movement as a whole.

I agree with Alexis about `process theosophy' to the extent that theosophy
is primarily a *way of knowing* and not an *object of
knowledge*.  What is there to be mad at in that?  Those who obsess over
theosophy as a body of doctrines are IMO mistaking the pointing finger for the
moon.  I am tremendously appreciative to HPB, G de P et al for
formulating that body of doctrines, and feel that I have gained
a lot from their study.  But I also feel that I wasted a chunk
of my life mistaking the finger for the moon, imagining that I
knew something when all I did was parrot others.  Ultimately the whole point
is to become a theosopher, one who theosophizes-- rather than a
Theosophist, one who believes what someone else says about
theosophy.

Don't you agree?