Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00997)

At 07:23 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>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?
>
Paul. amigo mio; I don't know if Martin will agree or not, but I agree with
everything you said. As to who the miscreants are: well there are Jerry S.,
myself, JRC, Chuck, and others not represented on theos-list. Actually there
are a lot of process theosophists. I really think the biggest problem Martin
has, and the reason he is "lashing out" in that fashion is that he has a big
time fear that we just might be right. It seems to me, based upon Martin's
postings, that his complaint that we never bolster our "complaints" with
serious arguments is a "smoke screen" and nothing else. JRC, who is a
College Professor and PHD, has posted some rather well developed arguments
on the subject, and certainly so has Jerry S., who is also a PHD. I too have
posted long and academic arguments based on scholarship...but Martin just
keeps saying we never do so. Of course we can't be expected to quote from G
de P or Robert Crosbie or even HPB as that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about INDIVIDUAL comprehension and understanding and
INDIVIDUAL thinking, that precludes quotations and citations. I don't think
most of us "Process theosophists" intend to present arguments against the
teachings themselves (at least for the most part) it's that we are
disparaging the perception and utilization of the teachings by people like
John Algeo and Radha Burnier..

alexis dolgorukii