Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00569)

At 12:02 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>>
>>Daniel ...
>
>Well, I have made my own views very plain over the years,
>both here and on Peacenet.  My feeling is that the core
>teachings as given out, are exoteric and simplistic--
>suitable perhaps for Joe Sixpack, but covering over
>many deeper and more esoteric meanings.  I am not
>sure, but I think Eldon agrees with me on this.  My premise,
>basically, is that reincarnation and karma, for an example
>of core teachings, are a whole lot more complicated than
>what we find in the literature.  The problem is that the
>literature appears to contain step-by-step processes
>and descriptions, and would seem to have addressed
>karma and reincarnation in depth.  My view is that this
>is an illusion.  Karma is *not* rewards and punishments--
>this is merely how we as human beings perceive it.
>Karma is causality, the same causality that we find
>in physics with the exception of its application on other
>planes rather than just the physical.  And causality (order)
>has "holes" in it, which I call the Chaos Factor.  Karma
>also must be seen as both individual and collective,
>and the collective part works on the mental level under
>very complicated telepathic stategems that we only
>barely recognize.  All of the other core teachings are
>the same way.  They appear to be completely discussed
>in the literature, but this is simply not so; they are all
>much more complicated than they appear when put
>into words.
>
>	Jerry S.

Jerry:

While I do not agree with everything you say, I do agree with most of it.
The problem, as I see it, and obviously as John Cooper sees it too, is that
when one of us "small 't' theosophists" makes a complicated and complete
statement of our views, complete with alternatives and supporting arguments
etc. And JRC has done so quite voluminously, and as I have been doing in my
ongoing discussions with Alan Bain, that is a thing which is completely
ignored. I thought I had an ongoing public discussion with Martin Euser
regarding my published pamphlet "Ruminations", but only the other day
discovered it had been private. That, of course, was my own error for being
so computer illiterate. But now the ruminations string is public, and I plan
to continue the discussion of those subjects on alt.theosophy (Please do try
to join us there).

Now it seems to me that Daniel Caldwell will accept no "supporting
arguments" that are not quotes from "Theosophical Literature". These I am
not willing to use as I believe a good deal of "Theosophical Literature" to
be on the level of Sunday School Homilies.

I, for one, would like to see more serious, advanced level, discussions on
Theos-list. We had pretty well agreed to commence an on-going discussion of
the effects of CWL on theosophy....I haven't seen much except for Doss's
spirited defense of Leadbeater. I for one, hesitate to respond in that case
for Doss is what I call a "true believer", and I don't think he is
interested in facts, that is in this instance ONLY. He's such a nice person
one wouldn't want to really hurt his feelings in any way. I wish he'd read
"Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett, as I have, and that might help him, he
has, after all an analytical mind.

I do wish we'd have more serious discussion on this list but one can
scarcely get it going. What do you think can be done?

alexis dolgorukii
>	Member, TI
>
>
>
>