Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00135)

Titus Roth wrote:
>
> Thanks for quoting the letter from the Maha Chohan, Doss. As I read it,
> however, it looks like a warning against going *exclusively* to the
> How side. All too often, truths are taken in a one-sided manner and
> out of context. Although I emphasized the How in my post, I did not
> mean to be one-sided about it.
>
    Glad for your clarification. There is a wide spectrum of interests
based on individual aptitudes (may be due to influence of one or more of
the 7 rays). In any case, so long as the objectives and direction of
progress is ok it is fine. However, if the direction is not ok, any
amount of tinkering or slight correction does no good since one will
still be going in the wrong direction. Each one of us have to introspect
and determine for ourself all these and take a balanced approach --
neither extereme.


> For the benefit of discussion, I'll repeat your quote:
>
> "Rather perish the TS with both its hapless founders than that we should
> permit it to become *no better* than an academy of magic, a hall of
> occultism." (emphasis mine)
>
> "And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are expected
> to allow the TS to drop its noble title, that of Brotherhood of Humanity, to
> become *a simple school of psychology*. No, no, good brothers, you have been
> labouring under the mistake too long already."
>
> At the time of the TS, the world had a clouded view of the Why of things.  The
> western world at large did not believe in reincarnation. People were taught
> that if you were good you would sing with angels after death and play harps;
> and if you weren't good, you would live in hell, smelling coal fumes for all
> eternity. In the spiritist movement, people were obsessed with gaining
> phenomenal powers, ignoring their use and their priority in the scheme of
> things. Theosophy did a great service in giving a "theosophic perspective".
>
> Today, the dielectic has polarized again. This time Theosophy has gone
> too far to the other pole.
>
> A perspective without steps is lame, steps without direction are blind.

   Agreed. A vision of the direction is going to be very helpful for
most of us especially those who have been introduced to theosophy
recently. Again, I would look for a low fog level approach so that
everyone can be reached, not the intellectuals with PhDs only.

mkr