Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00246)

Quoting from Dallas's post:

<<"It is time Theosophy should enter the arena,." wrote 
the Great Master in a letter in 1881 "For our doctrines to 
practically react on the so-called moral code, or the ideas 
of truthfulness, purity, self-denial, charity, etc., we have 
to preach and popularize a knowledge of Theosophy." [T 
A & N. p. 189.]>>

"Popularize" in that context brought to mind Leon's 
models, among other things. That is, I tend to agree with 
Leon that, by scientizing certain aspects of Theosophy, 
(by using a popular language of the age), one might reach 
those for whom other kinds of introductions to 
Theosophic issues might be far less applealing.

On Theos-1, Gerald wrote:

((((Mauri, I shouldn't say anything in response to Leon, 
who is not even here to defend himself. But I feel the 
need to at least say the following: 

<<<Leon wrote: <<Have you any idea why the SD was 
subtitled, "A Synthesis of Science, Religion and 
Philosophy?" >>>

My response to this question is:

Science stands for intellectual knowledge
Religion stands for faith Philosophy stands for 
experiential knowledge

All three are necessary lest Theosophy "be nothing more 
than another religious dogma destined to die on the 
vine?" Emphasizing intellectual knowledge alone will kill 
Theosophy in only a few generations. It is already doing 
so, and Theosophy is today in its last gasp because of its 
over-emphasis on intellectualism. The "head doctrine" is 
intellectual knowledge, the "heart doctrine" is 
experiential knowledge and the one will get us nowhere 
without the other. >>>)))))))
--------------

Leon wrote: <<Why don't you tell us what you think 
theosophy really is "more "realistically about"? >>

As I see it, there would seem not to be any solution, or 
"more realistic approach to Theosophy," that by-passes 
anything that's relevant to a broader and lasting 
understanding of Theosophy. In other words (?), 
regardless of whichever doctrine or approach one might 
be inclined to follow, if that approach is not wisely 
enough balanced with aspects of intellect, faith, and 
experience, the result might not be particularly 
representative of "Theosophic progress" . . . I'm making 
a "general comment," here, and not accusing anybody of 
not being wise enough. We all seem to be "wise enough" 
in our various "own ways," basically, often times, 
but/"but" . . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri