Re: Mahachohan's letter
May 15, 1997 11:17 PM
by M K Ramadoss
At 04:48 PM 5/15/97 -0400, K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>Following up the discussion between Doss and Titus:
>I think there are two separate issues getting combined into one
>in this question of the Mahachohan's letter. First is theory
>vs. practice and second is selfishness vs. altruism. Doss, you
>seem to be taking the letter as being against practice, when I
>read it as simply being against selfishness. Olcott is praised
>for his work for Buddhism. Is Buddhism a purely theoretical
>religion? No, it's based on spiritual practices. Is HPB a
>purely theoretical occultist? Again, no, she's quite renowned
>for her practical feats in that domain. But is praised in the
>letter for her altruism, as I recall. Hume
>and Sinnett are condemned for aspiring to be special pupils in
>occultism, for being fascinated by magic. But the problem
>isn't that they want to learn something practical; it's that
>they lack the proper ethical foundation to do the particular
>kinds of practical study they aspire to.
I did not read that the letter was against practice.
Theory with no action is not going to do any good to anyone.
Right action is needed at all times, IMHO. Now the second point that comes
up is what is spiritual action or practice and what is the purpose of it
all? Each one of us can define this to the best of our understanding.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application