Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00296)

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, be94bmp wrote:

> Hello Brothers and Sisters,
>
> I'm new to this list and I'm truly glad that we have it. However, I've read a
> number of the threads which sadden me. I've been a member of the TS here in
> the UK for about 2 years now and I've never come across this type of thing.

	Very glad to see you here. The Internet is a totally different
medium than every other medium we use to communicate. Many things you see
that may sadden you is just noise and as you keep going you will find
that each one here is very committed to T/theosophy in his/her own way
and that is why they are willing to take the time to read all the
messages and respond to them. It takes considerable amount of time each
day to just read the messages, not to mention about responding. All the
range of messages are ok here only because it is not directly or
indirectly controlled or censored by any Theosophical Organization. It
was setup by the foresight of one T/theosophist - John E Mead and he is
lurking and you will rarely see him. The uniqueness of this and other
theos-xxx lists is that from time to time you will find information which
is unavailable from any source since most of those who controls those
sources would censor anything that they think reflects badly on them or
their ideas of what T/theosophy is. More you are subscribed, you will
like it more.



> There seems to be a lot of anger there in the US about something and I don't
> know what. Call me naive but I thought theosophy was all about brotherhood

   From time to time, you will find issues affecting the organizational
matters of the Theosophical Society in America will be discussed.
Thesophy is one thing -- TS and the organizational matters along with the
money and other matters complicate things and this is the only venue to
discuss some of those things. The organizational leaders control and
censor the content of the Official Publication and so what else do you
expect.



> [read sisterhood too!], regardless of whether you are a member of the TS or
> not, and yet I hear all these arguments about "who's the true theosophist?"
> Surely a "true theosophist" wouldn't even contemplate such questions since
> that might be considered egotism,might it not?!

	We all may discuss who is a true theosophist - and with wide
range of views on it. Even HPB did not define what Theosophy is; so how
can any one define or try to describe who is a true theosophist? It is an
impossible task except that each one of us can come up with a definition
which is just one's opinion and nothing more.


> Also, I realise from the start that my mental apparatus isn't in the same
> category as some of those on this list and so perhaps my philosophical
> arguments may be weak compared,but might I suggest that the questions about
> whether men or women are superior are in fact irrelevant. For those

   Many of us on this list are just begginers and with low level of
mental apparatus and I would be the first one to admit that I would be
the first in that category. In our ignorance we may be imagining that we
know a lot and only to find all that is all wrong - this happens in
retrospect some time in the future. So don't despair. You are in the
right place and you have very good company.


> further on the Path than most I think personality can be quite a destructive

    I have a real problem here. How does any one who where they are on
the Path and how could they compare how they are doing relative to
someone else. Again how does any one know whether there is one Path or
multitudes of Paths. We need a living Adept -- if we can locate one -- to
tell us.


> thing and I can quite imagine that those who suggest one or the other as
> being superior are simply expressing the active and passive principles in the
> most natural way according to their natures, though it may not be what they
> actually know to be the Truth.

       Again most of can only speculate about what is Truth. If we find
Truth, can it be described in words and can it at all communicated to any
one? As a novice I think I do not know.

> Finally,I'd like to ask the group what they believe to be insanity. Someone
> suggested that to believe that there is nothing to perceive in Truth  -
> please forgive me if those aren't the exact words,[it seems there is a
> tendency for some people get easily offended by not getting it exactly
> correct and go for the throat and consequently waste other people's time on
> meaningless arguments] - but this is what I believe. If I am "insane" then
> what of the Universal Mind - does it perceive anything at all, if not is It
> insane? If it is, what does this mean for the rest of us?!!
> Thank you for bearing with me on this long post.
>

  On the fundamental question of T/theosophy and TS, I would go back to
what the Adepts told AP Sinnet several times. They want something to be
done to help orphan Humanity. All the fine points of the mechanics of the
man/woman and universe etc., are all simply speculation until such time
each one of us from direct knowledge know these details. We can all
repeat like parrots what is said in one book or the other, but they are
all second hand.


> Namaste!
>
> With Love and Light we can heal the World
>
> Ben
>
>
I agree. We can help Humanity by helping all living beings with which we
come into contact every day.


MKR