Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00055)

In a way, in some areas, to some extent, (as in the case 
of G de P vis-a-vis ULT, for example, if that kind of 
thing can be seen in "case" terms in a 
"relevant-enough" sense around here?), I tend to 
suspect that we're all "right" and we're all "wrong," in 
as much as some aspects of esoteric/o/Occult 
evaluations might be seen to be a matter of perspective 
that's "personal," in whatever sense, including one's 
"higher" senses---in addition to being, (as Theosophists 
might agree?), karmic/mayavic. But if one of the 
objectives of Theosophy is seen to be, at least 
theoretically (in whatever "personal" sense), an 
approach that's at least "intentionally meant" 
("advisedly" speaking) as transcending (or "somewhat 
transcending," say?) at least some aspects of "personal 
and rights and wrongs," (with a possible added 
objective of learning from various exchanges of 
opinion, along the way?), then ... ?

Having read some of G de P's comments about the 
ULT, and having read some of A.L. Cleather's 
comments about some of what might be called 
"Neo-Theosophists" (not that I know of ALC's 
comments about, or "more-specific" relevance to, ULT, 
and not that I have read Cleather's THE GREAT 
BETRAYAL), I tend to feel that they all offer, for me, 
(or might be seen to offer, for many others?), what 
might be called (in some "broader sense," maybe?) 
"relevance" in some "various ways" ... but in as much 
as reading between the lines of certain passages of 
those writers is seen as a matter that's personal, 
intuitional and spiritual (and whatever else?), and 
influenced by karma, that "trancending" (in whatever 
sense) of the various possible "personal rights and 
wrongs" that some words may be seen to convey might 
... be seen to vary somewhat (to say the least, in some 
cases?), from person to person, so ... 

"Anyway," seems to me that there might be (are?) some 
"rather apparently" fundamental differences in how 
some people interpret some of what might be called 
keyish or important aspects of esoteric/occut topics (as 
occasionally dicovered by some students of 
Theosophy?), so if one has more or less decided, after 
so many years of trying, that one's efforts to present 
one's currently-favored views (or how about 
"currently-favored views," "advisedly," in quotes, if 
that's not "too" something---he he?) are not, to all 
apearances, getting across intact-enough, in many 
cases, then ... ^:-) ... ?

It's occurred to me that that kind of apparent (or 
"real"?) impasse might've had something to do with 
why HPB at one point apparently said something to 
the effect that Theosophy is altruism, pure and simple. 
Could there be a form of spiritual or spriritualistic (or 
"transendental"?) altruism (or sense of "essential 
common cause," in somewhat more "ordinary" terms, 
say?) that humans could, theoretically, detect, to some 
extent, and then expand on (if in their own, various, yet 
"relevant-enough ways"... dare I suggest ^:-) ... ?), as a 
means of introducing, say, "more sanity" into their 
lives, in general? 

Speculatively,
Mauri