Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00214)

>Chuck writes>
>You're gonna get a lot of answers to this one, but this the faq I prepared
>for alt.theosophy.

Richard Ihle writes>
Chuck, I appreciate your sharing the frequently-asked-questions material.
 Let me take this opportunity to ask you a question as well:  Is the piece
just intended to be the one-time contribution of a common participant on alt.
theosophy, or is in some way a "quasi-official" semi-defining or tone-setting
introduction-to-the-newsgroup which will appear again and again?

Also, don't hesitate to correct me, but I am sort of getting the impression
that you feel that your role in asking someone to set up alt.theosophy gives
you a special proprietary (ownership/control) relationship to the newsgroup
which other possible participants do not have.  I am not saying that it
cannot work on that basis; however, I would like to get it clear from the
outset to what extent you believe the newsgroup will be proceeding under the
auspices/direction of "Uncle Chuckie."

Now, as an individual contribution, your FAQ had some amusing things in it.
 However, I did not like it as a way to acquaint interested newcomers with
either theosophy or the Theosophical Movement.

>Chuck>
>It helps to be three things, interested in things spiritual, slightly crazy
and incredibly >stubborn.  People often join the Theosophical Society because
everyone else would >throw them out.
>Every spiritual system imaginable is represented in our ranks, ranging from
the >somewhat orthodox believers in common religions like Christianity and
Buddhism, to >Witches, Magicians, Satanists (we don't like to admit that, but
we have them) Tree >Worshippers, Rock Worshippers and followers of Jean
Huston.  If it exists, we have at >least one.

[snip]

>Is it true that Theosophists sacrifice and eat babies?
>Not as an organizational practice, as lots of Theosophists are vegetarians,
but Chuck >says they can be very tasty if served with the right sauce.

R.I.>
I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know.  As if it were not bad enough
that Radha and John Algeo are on one side of me semi-officially asserting
that ~Theosophy~ means specific, approved doctrine and belief in Masters, do
I have to have a semi-official Sub-Genius, almost-nihilistic tone permeating
alt.theosophy on the other side of me as well?  While your FAQ piece did not
go nearly so far in this direction as you are capable of, it went far enough
to prompt me to hope that it is just intended as a one-shot contribution and
not something which will be continued to be used as the first thing which
acquaints newcomers with theosophical ideas, the Theosophical Movement, or
alt.theosophy.

I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know.  This may surprise you, but if I
had to chose, I honestly think I would almost prefer to have a newsgroup with
a "Core Theosophist" in charge, filtering my ideas, rather than a newsgroup
which is primarily characterized by a tone of ridicule or licentious
denigration.   

If the most generic definition of ~theosophy~ is "knowledge which has its
base in, or at least originally derives from transcendental, mystical, or
intuitive insight or higher perception," doesn't this in itself imply there
is something very special and worthy about the individuals who are drawn into
such an arena to begin with?  At the minimum, aren't these the
"people-unlike-the-rest-of-the-world" who are or have been willing to
consider this type of non-empirical knowledge in their search for Truth? 

I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know.  I realize that many things you
say about Theosophists being "slightly crazy" or "incredibly stubborn" are
true in their own way; however, when I look at the Theosophical Family, I
also sometimes just cannot help but see it more in the manner of Black Elk's
Vision of his tribe, both the living members and the dead: 

"And as we went the Voice behind me said:  'Behold a good nation walking in a
sacred manner in a good land!'"

I don't know, Chuck . . . I just don't know.  Flaws and shortcomings, present
and past, notwithstanding, don't you think Theosophy is basically a good
nation where the individuals at least ~try and have tried~ to walk in a
sacred manner according to their own understandings? 

Anyway, if a FAQ must be developed for use and re-use by alt.theosophy, my
hope is that it does not establish the "anything-goes" attitude so firmly by
the "eating babies" jokes etc. that the first impression a newcomer would get
is that we are a bad or foolish nation all walking upon one another
sacrilegiously. . . . 

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle