We would appreciate your feedback on our change of direction. While we are firmly set in our determination to steer the course outlined in our statement, specifically to engage with the "Traditional Theosophies" and moving away from the Blavatsky tradition, we want to get your thoughts and suggestions for how we can make this a successful endeavor.
We ask that your input be honest, and if you don't like what we're doing please be civil in your comments.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Very nice thoughts Bro. Jaakko. I also believe that what our founders and elders has explained about what Theosophy is are all encompassing. What and how we believe as true in our daily study of Theosophy is dependent on our understanding and interpretation of the facts presented. So we alone will decide at the end of the day which is true or what is the truth for us. Until now, we have not found the Theory of Everything that can irrevocably prove the origin of life and our search for an incontestable physical truth of this world is still beyond our reach. What more with those that are unseen and beyond us. Even the Secret Doctrine tells us that with all the knowledge we have now, we have barely lifted a leaf. However, through a collective effort we may one day hit the jackpot.
In my opinion, there are two serious problems with theosophy that inhibit treating it as a consistent system of thought.
1. First off, theosophy is an artifical creation that has been made up from bits and pieces of a complete doctrine which have sometimes been distorted on purpose (remember what HPB wrote about blinds?). K.H.'s letters to Sinnett make it very clear. In essence it is a derivative product of deliberately inferior quality, which is due to inherent dangers involved in full disclosure of occult technicalities. Apparently this is the best we can get. Nevertheless it is quite suitable as a starting point for our own research, so for all practical purposes this so-called "theosophy" full of gaps, blinds and coded messages is fine. This is similar to nuclear weapons: we know it exists and works and there is a large body of knowledge behind it, but it is shrouded in secrecy and popular presentations omit many important aspects and are deliberately misleading; nevertheless anyone who is willing to put sufficient time and resources into it would be able to design and build it. But let us not call it true nuclear physics when we come across a popular article that explains how nuclear bomb is made.
2. There are no reasons to believe the situtation would improve. Anyone who gets access to the true doctrine can do so only with an oath pledging secrecy and non-disclosure and won't share this knowledge with others at this forum or anywhere else.
Well, I say that the situation is improving. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. I say that anyone getting access to the true doctrine will today take an oath of sharing it as need dictates.