Re: Defining Theosophy
Feb 23, 1997 11:17 AM
by Titus Roth
"Dr. A.M.Bain" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
Yes. I see what you are saying. I have had a similar experience with other
texts. (Not Jung's in my case.) As long as you eventually get to the source,
it matters little what path you take - even if you have to unlearn some false
things you have swallowed whole from an occasional apologist.
I think we agree that the original source contains some vitality or spirit in
it. This spirit persists in spite of the "lack of knowledge" evident in any
pioneer's works. Pioneers, having limited time and also being in the midst of
the prejudices they are trying to break through, do not always polish their
works or avoid errors.
In the case of HPB, for example, I think we can safely discard her attempts to
express ideas in the language of late 19th century science. Her refutations of
contemporary errors can also be a little tedious. Nevertheless, after
filtering out these and other things, I get something from her direct writings
that I miss from other Theosophical writings.
Words do not exactly capture a new impulse. "The Tao that can be told is not
the eternal Tao." But you have to listen with the "inner ear."
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application