[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Defining Theosophy

Feb 21, 1997 07:48 PM
by Dr. A.M.Bain

In message <>, Titus Roth
<> 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

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.

THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application