Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00301)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:
> Dear Paul,
> 
> I think I am beginning to understand what is going on here. 
> Somewhere else (I had a lot of emails to go through when I returned 
> and so I'm not sure where) I think I read that you said, "I am not 
a theosophist." Am I correct in deducing that you view theosophy as 
> a historical anomaly, 

No, I think you're getting that from the way I view Theosophy. 
Theosophy is a movement that originated in the 19th century; 
theosophy is a kind of knowing. I used to adhere to the former; the 
latter is something one can't escape as long as one pursues spiritual 
studies of any kind.

greater 
> consciousness. But your approach may be more like that of viewing 
> theosophy from the outside, and trying to investigate it from that 
> point of view, without any personal involvement.

Re Theosophy, that is, that is now the case.

> Her personal idiosyncracies do not affect the validity of theosophy 
> in my view, since theosophy exists within and beyond any material 
> phenomenon. 

Right, but they do affect the validity of Theosophy to some extent, 
as they distorted her writings. And all writings are distorted by 
personal idiosyncrasies in some way or other.

> So it seems we are attempting to talk about something that we view 
> in very different ways. This is not impossible, but it is not easy, 
> since our very definitions are opposite from each other. I see 
> theosphy as a representation in material form of eternal truth, 
which exists in everything, including myself, 

same here

and you see it as a phenomenon external to yourself to be examined 
for validity. Is that 
> a fair analysis?
> 
No; you seem to be equating theosophy with Theosophy. I see the 
latter as a very 19th century phenomenon whereas the former is 
timeless.

Hope that helps,

Paul