Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)
Jun 17, 1996 11:15 PM
by Blavatsky Foundation
>>> We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>>>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
Jerry S. responded in part:
>>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
Jerry, you may have given your detailed views outlining why reincarnation
and karma are a whole lot more complicated than what we find in the literature.
Maybe you have given in great detail why you believe that the core teachings of
theosophy are exoteric and simplistic. I haven't seen that kind of detail
I have been reading on theos-l for the last year or so. Maybe I have overlooked
it. My only point was that many people on theos-l simply state with little
with little supporting evidence or reasoning that they disagree with some core
For example, JRC and Eldon have debated the issue of
psychism many times on theos-l and I have come away with very little
from either side. Has JRC shown the fallacies in the core teachings on
Has Eldon defined what the core teaching on psychism is? What writers has he
based this definition on? Has JRC given detailed reasons that would
there are serious misunderstandings in the core teaching on psychism? Has JRC
detailed the evidence to show that what HPB or the Masters wrote 100 years
ago is not
valid today or does not cover the whole field, etc. etc? Has Eldon......
Too many times we just get
simple declarative statements. But I would like to know how the writer came
that statement. What is the reasoning behind the statement? Where is the
and supporting arguments to buttress the simple declarative statement?
Possibly the core teaching on some particular subject is just flat wrong.
But to just say that the teaching is wrong or exoteric or simplistic and not
on and then show with illustrations and detail how the teaching is wrong,
no useful purpose and leaves me totally in the dark. I believe this was what
Martin Euser was in part trying to say recently in one of his posts to
Alexis wrote in part:
>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.
Alexis' statement about me is way off base. For example, JRC may have very
good supporting arguments with ample evidence, reasoning, etc., to support his
view as opposed to Eldon's on psychism. And JRC's evidence, etc may be from
sources OTHER THAN "Theosophical literature"!!! But my only point was that
if JRC does NOT
detail those arguments and does NOT list some of the evidence and does NOT
show his line of reasoning, etc.
then I, at least, will not be in a very good position to understand his
contentions concerning the
theosophical view on psychism.
Of course, no one is obliged to offer such details, etc. But it is hard to
have a really
serious discussion without such indepth explorations.
"WHERE'S THE BEEF? SO FAR I'VE ONLY SEEN THE BUNS AND A LITTLE LETTUCE...."
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application