Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00457)

In message <199702211755.JAA25271@palrel1.hp.com>, Titus Roth
<titus@clisome9.rose.hp.com> writes
>When I studied Jung, for instance, most
>of my class mates read from Jungians, not Jung. I have nothing against reading
>Jungians. Certainly depth psychology did not stop with Jung, but why disregard
>the luminaries that brought the first and often most vital impulse in a new
>field?

The Jungians, IMO, clarified what was for most students a difficult
study, and such as Neumann, Fordham, Jacobi, Harding and others deserve
applause.  Persoanlly, I found Jung's own writings to be a little
clearer after studying his "next generation" writers.

Like all such luminaries - and there may be a parallel with HPB here -
Jung was breaking new ground, and much of his earlier writing reflects
his own *lack* of knowledge at various stages.

The bottom line here is that it may more often than not be better to
start with the apologists (in the academic sense) and *then* go to the
source luminaries.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk

------------------------------