Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00451)

Bill: "What is your religious background?"

My parents are not religious, but involved with nature and all of the 
arts, and so was I early on, and it had a strong influence on me.

I started in my early teens reading Carl Jung as a friend mentioned 
the word "psychology" as something "interesting". My interest quickly 
spread to parapsychology. 

Did read a copy of Isis and the SD (but not all of it) during that 
time, about 16 of age, and branched of from there to an interest in 
the various esoteric movements,17th 18th century secret societys and 
so on.

Travelled in North and South India, the Phillipines, staid for a year 
on Hawaii where my familiarity with American english comes from. 
During the time 9 or 10 years ago I was studying about Masonic secret 
societys as I mentioned above, I had a brief contact with Joscelyn 
Godwin who recomended Theosophical History Quarterly to me, and wich 
is when more of an interrest in the history of the various 
Theosophical movements started to devellop. I stayd a year in Dornach 
Switzerland to study Steiners movement art Eurythmy, its a small 
village and the environment was verry beautifull. During my trips to 
India I also visited Adyar, and was in the Indian Headquarters in 
Benares.

As far as reacting to fundamentalism, or forms of diminishing other 
people, looking at the different esoteric groups, psychological 
groups, cultural groups, the many ideas people have in various 
societys, the unity seems to ly in accepting their diversity, and in 
one or the other situation this or that might work better then 
another. 

As for Theosophy, I already gave some of my opinions on the list, but 
basicly expecially Blavatskyan Theosophy (probably the reason it 
interests me) contains so many different things that TS members 
often don't seem to be aware of, and seems to have been more explored 
in the studys of Godwin, Johnson, Deveney, and some of the 
Theosophical History Q. crew, that I was surprised to find out by 
members of this list not to have not been read widely.

Sylvia Cranston might be a good book for first comers, but I think 
would be wise to follow up with the more in depth above others, and 
not just move from Cranston into religious type generalizations.

A different story as with Blavatsky (would need another approach) is 
Leadbeaterian Theosophy or Alice Baily, that certainly are variations 
based on Blavatsky's initial synthesis, and so on. 

What I have encounterred in most of the esoteric and other groups 
that I have looked at and also seem to count for some members on this 
list, is there is a tendency to take that particular system (and 
that is what all of them are, their own synhesis and therefore 
somewhat different from the others with common similaritys between 
certain groups), project it on the outside world (like looking 
through glasses in a particular color), and next in their desire for 
it to be everything, try to bend or talk away (or in the worst case 
scenario condemn) the things that now suddenly don't fit but they 
don't notice that. I think that is a pitty and maybe the root cause 
of fundamentalism of any kind.

A pitty because it limits oneself to discover new aspects wich 
makes life interesting. There are always new things to discover 
including in Blavatskyan Theosophy, its sources, background, 
including Blavatsky's biography that for a large part still remains a 
mystery. 

Brigitte

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@s...> wrote:
> Dear Brigitte,
> Please tell us. What is your religious background? Will you tell 
us the
> truth?
> I simply won't believe you if you don't.
> 
> Bill
> 
> ----------
> > From: bri_mue <bri_mue@y...>
> > To: theos-talk@y...
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: in defence of Religion.
> > Date: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:41 AM
> > 
> > Adelasie, first all, Larry F Kolts mentions he has been 35 years 
an 
> > active Mormon, what is your religious background ?
> > 
> > Don't tell me its Theosophy, because with expressions like "the 
> > Devil" and "The Antichrist" I simple wouldn't believe you if 
you'd 
> > tell me you where a Theosophist most of your life. Will you tell 
us 
> > the truth ?
> > 
> > Brigitte
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:
> > > Dear Brigitte,
> > > 
> > > You have gotten confused, I fear. In scholarship, attribution 
is 
> > > important. If you have forgotten who said what yesterday, how 
shall 
> > > we trust that you are historically accurate about things that 
> > > happened 150 years ago?
> > > 
> > > In the paragraph below, I said the first sentence in one post. 
> > > Someone else said the next three sentences in another post, and 
I 
> > > said the last three sentences in a third post in response to a 
> > > different person. 
> > > 
> > > A word to the wise,
> > > Adelasie
> > > 
> > > On 27 Jan 02, at 7:32, bri_mue wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Adelasie: " We need not submit to the machinations of this 
force 
> > which
> > > > seeks to confuse and destroy. Could you consider the 
possibility 
> > that
> > > > confusion and destruction are dangers that come to the 
movement 
> > from
> > > > within, more than from without? From excessive faith, rather 
than
> > > > excessive doubt? From those who intend to protect Theosophy 
from 
> > the
> > > > devil.- I always wondered what that term "antichrist" means? 
That
> > > > which is not the Christ? That which is opposed to the Christ?"
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> >