Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl01083)

At 08:50 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Another thing is that I regard indifference in attitude regarding
>> this matter of labeling as a very serious flaw.
>	Martin, what you you mean here?  How
>do you know that the "indifference" isn't tacit agreement?
>
>> We have to seperate between fundamentalistic ways of
>>approaching teachings and the teachings themselves
>	What are "fundamentalistic ways of approaching
>teachings?" Do you mean believing in them as gospel truth?
>I think that each theosophist has to decide for themself
>what is true and what is false.  To say that they are all true,
>or to say that none of them are true, are the two possible
>extreme views.  The truth, as is often the case, lies in the
>middle.  How do we separate the true from the false?  By
>individual experience.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>Jerry: I really have to "jump" in here. Over the past many weeks Martin and
I have been exploring a thread based upon his reactions to my "Ruminations"
(a published essay obtainable on request + $3.00 from Alan Bain). Martin
strongly disagree with much that I say and we have been discussing it for
some time now. Lately the thread has switched to "Process theosophy" and my
beliefs pertaining to it. What I didn't know (as you know I'm a neophyte
computer user) was that our discussion thread has been private. Therefore
you folks on the list have been unable (I think) to share our discussions.
Now Martin publically complains bitterly that no one will give him their
reasons for believing in "process theosophy", but that is entirely untrue, I
have spent hours and hours patiently detailing all of my own rationale for
my beliefs, he either ignores them, or cannot comprehend them (my
suspicion). And then publically complains I am not responding. As I see it
Martin is disengenuous, dissembling (For instance: he claims to be a
physicist and a psychologist but all he has is a Baccalaureate),He responds
to me privately and publically complains I do not "give details and reasons"
and I think he's downright dishonest for doing this. Now he is mounting an
utterly invalid personal attack on me for so-called  "labeling", this is
unacceptable! It is certainly utterly disingenuous! I have merely pointed
out, as others have before me that from reading the messages to this list
one concludes that some people see theosophy as a process and other treat it
religiously as a "Core Doctrine". One of those who treat it as "revealed
truth" is clearly Martin Euler, who clearly believes Gottfried de Peruker
walked on water! I, of course, don't believe ANYONE ever "walked on water"
primarily because I can see no valid reason why one who could...would!

alexis
>