Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00333)

>Now seems to be a time of opportunity to reflect on what
>changes in theos-xxx discussions might make them more truly
>theosophical in spirit and tone....

	Paul, good post, and good ideas.  I can only speak
for myself, though.  First of all, the idea that we are all on equal
playing fields is wrong; study and experience requires that we
each have insights that others do not yet have.  However, this
does not have to be seen as a right-vs-wrong situation.  We
all are, in fact, right in a very large sense.  Eldon and I, for example,
have worked out a nice agreement on theos-l over several years,
in which we both realize that the "core teachings" can be
seen and interpreted on many different levels of understanding.
None of these are "wrong" or "false" or "untrue."  Rather, some
are exoteric (outward or simplistic) while others are esoteric
(inward or complex).  So, arguing over core teachings is pretty
silly, and leads us nowhere.   What we can, and should, be
doing on theos-l is sharing our unique perspectives and
interpretations.
	For an example, take karma.  Now I have suggested
that karma is a whole lot more complicated than the simple
idea of rewards and punishments.  This does not mean that
"karma is rewards and punishments for our actions" is wrong.
I am really only suggesting that there is more to it than that.
This has to do with Eldon's metaphor of mining for gold; that
the golden teachings of Theosophy lie buried in the literature
at various levels of understanding.
	The same can be said for core vs process
Theosophy.  Good and bad can be said for either, and I suspect
that the ideal approach is some combination of the two rather
than either one at the expense of the other.  If we look at Theosophy
this way, perhaps we can avoid flaming others who are talking
on a different level of understanding.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI