Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00040)

At 05:55 AM 9/2/96 -0400, Michael wrote:
>Liesel wrote:
>>'Scuse me, but with a statement like that, I'm wondering what kind of
>>theosophy you've been studying, if any.
>
>OOOh, stepped on a sore toe there! Was it the truth after all?
>About my background:  after shaking hands with G.d.P. in 1938 I was sent
>from the Lotus Circle as a naughty boy. Then again I shook hands with James
>Long, but was given a similar treatment. And now I run the risk of history
>repeating itself!
>
>I may assure Liesel that I have many a book on Theosophy in my book case
>that she wouldn't like to read. May be I studied them too much!


        This issue comes up frequently. Theosophy has never been officially
defined. So who can say whether my understanding of theosophy is better or
worse than say "X"'s or even I am wrong and "X" is right. After all, much of
what we all discuss and read about theosophy is still, at least for me, a
working hypothesis -- until I can have first hand understanding. This is the
*strength* of theosophy and why it is still alive after more than a century
after HPB got the modern theosophical movement going.

        I too have books in my closet, which many may not like to read. It
is not what we read but do we read it with a really open mind. If we read
with a closed mind -- even if the mind is closed by strong adherence to
certain *theosophical* ideas, it is still a closed mind and new
understandings may not be possible.


        My 2 cents worth.


        MK Ramadoss


PS: When organizations get in between us and theosophy as we understand it,
there could always be problems.