Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00389)

Thoa Tran wrote:
>
> According to Theosophical teachings, the only way you can extinguish the
> evolving part is by living for purely selfish and evil ends, living in ways
> which separates yourself from others. What proof do you have that K's
> teachings create that?

No proof at all. But I found Govert's recent posting om the subjct interesting.

> Theosophical teachings recommend the Guru-Chela relationship,
> but the consequences of doing otherwise do not inevitably lead to
> condemnation and "second death".

I totally agree.

> Basically, K taught self-reliance.
> Ultimately, the Guru and the Chela are both you.

Yes, and the problem I see with K is that the self he is teaching us to rely on
is not the higher self. And, Thoa, I say these things well knowing that I will
not be able to prove to you that I am "right", so I am not even really trying to
do so. But my "reading" of K tells me that he has rebelled, not only against the
Guru-chela relationship in the conventional sense, but also against his own
higher Self. I find it interesting that he didn't talk about a Higher Self, or
God-self or anything of that nature. Or did he?
>
> If someone finds "good" Gurus, power to him/her. The trick is to find one.
> IMO, it is not necessary to find one for spiritual growth.

I agree that the first and last Guru of Gurus is within. To find a guru in the
outer sense is not always necessary for spiritual growth, I agree on that one
also.

> Arrogance, deep-seated psychological problems, I don't care. His teachings
> are there for me to take, leave, or modify. If they're valid for me, then
> what does it matter? He's not my Guru.

I commented on this in my other (my path)-post today.
>
> What is wrong with subtle rebellion when tradition is not quite right?

It depends on what you rebel against in addition to the tradition that is not
quite right.

> How can you express the glory of the sun through such pitiful concrete
> instruments as words?

You could try me. I do have a "gift" of being able to receive through words a
lot more than the words themselves.

> Okay, "highly
> fulfilled" doesn't say much since people will follow whoever according to
> their tendencies for good or evil.

That's about just what I said.

> Let's just say that I find K's
> teachings to be valuable and Hitler's to be evil. The value of the
> teachings speak for themselves.

No, you and I are evaluating them. And quite differently at that.

> >But did he say that? Did he talk about trusting your divine self? Or have you
> >concluded that that was what he meant?
>
> You've studied K, I've studied K. The above is my conclusion based on the
> fact of his recommended actions even though he did not explicitly say it
> that way.

I find it VERY interesting and potentially significant that K did NOT talk about
trusting your divine self, or anything of that nature.

> Anybody who is narrowly focused on only one system is pretty dumb, IMO.

Then you would think it to be pretty dumb to be a chela of one master and follow
the path as he directs?

 --
Bjorn