Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00415)

According to Kim Poulsen:
>   Every day the idea seems to be catching on, probably because it is not  
>  refuted - except by the heroic last stand of Richard. Even KPJ seems to 
> have caught on to this idea of a core framework where authors can be inside 
> or outside according to the spiritual insight of the listmaker.

Yikes!  I see where you get this idea, but let me clarify or
recant.  There is no way around acknowledging the fact that
some texts are more widely accepted among Theosophists than
others.  That's DESCRIPTIVE, and "core teachings" in the
descriptive sense are no problem for me.  You can find out
which teachings are "core" by administering a questionnaire to
a representative sample of Theosophists, in that sense.
But I disagree heartily with the spirit of NORMATIVE "core teachings" in the
exclusivistic sense we see in evidence so often.  That is,
"other Theosophists ought to have the same priorities I/we
do."  To hell with that!  If Keith's study group enjoys At the Feet
of the Master, great.  I just think that the Voice would be more suitable
for study by the range of folks we have here on theos-l, since CWL is such
a hot potato.  And there's a personal factor at work, which I hope I
made clear: *for me* the Voice has been a very potent factor in
my spiritual life, and one I have never had the opportunity of
discussing with anyone.  Whereas AFM is a definite "thunk"
rather than "ding" in terms of my own resonance to it.  But
that's just one person, and if the majority prefers AFM, go for
it.