Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00342)

Dear Paul,

I'm surprised that you interpret my words as you do.

On 23 Jan 02, at 23:23, kpauljohnson wrote:
> 
> Hi again. I'd hoped for understanding but your response still conveys
> moral judgment and spiritual superiority. Hope to clarify how that is
> the case, and why this approach tends to obscure key issues.

If you read my words as indicating that I feel morally or spiritually 
superior to you, please reconsider. For the record, I am very sure 
that I am not superior to you or any other human being in or out of 
incarnation, in any way. Such assumption of superiority would 
indeed cloud issues. Perhaps I don't express myself very well, if 
some assumption of superiority is the impression I give. 
> 
> But I would ask you one 
> > thing. Are you aware that according to occultism, or theosophy, as
> > you call it, that which tends toward unity is positive and generates
> > progress, and that which tends toward separation is negative and
> > retards progress?
> 
> No, I wouldn't accept that. Differentiation is a necessary part of
> progress. 

I would suggest that differentiantion is a part of natural law, 
regarding all phenomena, not something we need to make sure 
occurs. Concentrating on separateness, however, is a choice we 
make which takes our attention away from the essential unity which 
is the underlying law of nature, governing all life and all phenomena. 

And that's how I understand HPB; that progress is
> *cyclical* and includes phases of expansion/ differentation and
> consolidation. Now as for the role of critical historical inquiry
> about HPB, it doesn't tend toward a certain kind of Theosophical
> groupthink unity about who she was and what she means. But is it
> negative, or retarding progress, to have plenty of competing
> interpretations in print for various historical figures? You could
> say that having dozens of biographies of Elizabeth I "tends toward
> separation" as opposed to having one officially approved version. But
> isn't most of the negativity and retarding of progress that goes on
> concerning historical books the reactions to them by people who don't
> like what they say? Rather than due to authors who "focus on personal
> foibles?"

It is always gratifying to our lower natures to concentrate on 
personalities instead of principles. In the case of a historical figure 
like Elizabeth I this may have some justification. She was not a 
spiritual leader, as far as I know, but a political leader. But in the 
case of HPB, concentrating on the lower personality seems to take 
our attention away from the meaning of the work she did.

An example: Humanity is in a crisis in its evolution. We are on the 
brink of a new level of vibration which will bring us closer to an age 
of brotherhood. We can look around us and see the evidence of 
suffering that our materialistic age has brought upon us. Humanity 
is like a starving person and theosophy is like a feast spread in 
front of him, which can provide all the nourishment he needs to go 
on in his life. We can eat the food, derive the benefit it offers, and 
be grateful, and use it for the good of all, or we can find fault with 
the china it is served upon, or the servants themselves, and miss 
the opportunity to avail ourselves of the benefits it offers. There is 
no superiority or inferiority involved. But the two approaches are 
different. On the one hand we have the opportunity to consciously 
become more responisible and useful people, and on the other 
hand, we choose not to avail ourselves of the opportunity. All 
humanity will evolve together, so until all seriously begin to accept 
the basic underlying principles of the ancient teaching and live 
accordingly, we will not collectively progress. To me, the choice is 
clear. We can imagine, for instance, a world without war, hunger, 
disease. Why not work to make that a reality? Theosophy shows us 
how. There are plenty of venues in the world in which to discuss the 
lower personality, material issues, but in a forum such as this, I 
must confess it surprises me that people choose such a course. 
When I realized something of the nature of this ongoing discussion, 
I wondered why it is occurring, and so asked some questions. I 
don't deny your right to think or discuss whatever you want, but it is 
difficult for me to understand how someone could come so close to 
the real thing, and then back away and discuss its trappings, as 
though they were more real than the essence. 
> 
> In the light of this, what is your purpose in 
> > concentrating on the differences you perceive between eternal truth,
> > represented by the term "theosophy," and the most recent
> > manifestation of some portion of eternal truth, which you
> > characterize as "Theosophy?"
> 
> I'd never characterize Theosophy in such a way; the most recent
> manifestation of eternal truth occurred a split second ago to someone.
> And every system of thought worthy of the name is "some portion of
> eternal truth." 

This is correct as I understand it too. I was referring to the cyclic 
pattern of the evolution of consciousness which includes from time 
to time the transmission of more "information" from inner sources to 
the outer world for the purpose of helping humanity to take the next 
step in our evolution. 

This distinction you say I'm concentrating on is one
> that I never have reason to think about except when someone starts
> making it clear that they don't respect it. That they don't see any
> difference between "HPB wrote it" and "it is divine wisdom." And you
> keep writing as if that is a distinction that eludes you, so I keep
> reminding you of it.

Yes, it does elude me. I am an intelligent person, and I read a lot of 
material from lots of different sources. I have only my own 
discernment to rely upon, and I have never come accross anything 
in my reading of HPB, or WQJ, that did not ring true to me. So in 
this I am different from you. We don't have to keep discussing this, 
if it makes you uncomfortable. I can accept your position, as right 
for you, but there are inconsistencies in some of the things you say 
that make me wonder why you take this position. Perhaps I have 
no right to ask such questions, and I will cease, if that is what you 
prefer.

> What in the world makes you think that I am competing with HPB? Is
> someone who writes a historical book about Jesus competing with Jesus?
> S/he's focusing on history, not posing as a spokesman for spiritual
> truth. Same here. Is the fact that a history book about HPB is a
> *different kind of book* than a devotional book *by HPB* justification
> for lecturing an author about the spiritual inferiority of his/her
> approach? Can't someone write a historical book about HPB without
> being accused of posing as superior to her?

You can do whatever you want to do, just like the rest of us, and 
karma will adjust according to the law. Again, I am not imputing 
superiority or inferiority to anyone. But when we bypass the 
message in order to analyse the messenger, we are in danger of 
missing the point. Perhaps the problem here is that you do not 
accept the validity of the Masters who guided HPB through her 
work? 
>
> 
> I have access to sources that weren't available to her. All authors
> have access to some sources and not others. To use this to suggest
> that it's lese-majeste to write about HPB because her sources were
> more special is going pretty far in the direction of
> anti-intellectualism.

I think a little intellectualism is a good thing, but that it is better to 
balance it with compassion, aspiration, devotion, and love. And 
yes, I do think HPB's sources were pretty special. Perhaps it is just 
too strange for some, in our tech-mad world, to imagine a hierarchy 
of elder brothers whom we cannot see providing anything of 
material or any other significance, but to me, this is exactly the 
only thing that makes any sense. Another way in which we differ?
> 
> > What good does it do anyone to concentrate on the personal foibles
> > of anyone else? 
> 
> That's a prejudicial way of putting it, because you regard as
> "personal foibles" things that others regard as "crucial biographical
> information." My books do not, of course, focus on "personal foibles"
> of HPB; not much in there about Yuri and next to nothing about drugs,
> accusations of criminality, etc. But authors who do explore such
> issues do good to their readers to the extent that the "foibles" they
> concentrate on play a central role in the lives of their subjects.

Perhaps, if we regard HPB as just another historical figure. To me 
she is much more than that, but not to you. That is pretty clear by 
now. 
> 
> Do we ever do more than reflect our own 
> > weaknesses when we choose to concentrate on the weaknesses of 
> > others? 
> 
> What leads you to accuse me of "concentrating on the weaknesses of
> others" when it is abundantly clear that I've done no such thing in my
> writings? Why are you concentrating, pretty relentlessly over a
> series of posts I might add, on my spiritual inferiority to
> Theosophists who don't ask improper questions about HPB? Or is this
> about the posts recently by Steve and Brigitte, in which case they'll
> have to reply for themselves.

Again, my comments have nothing to do with your spiritual stature. 
I simply could not and should not address such an issue, and I 
don't mean to. It may be that I was responding to you in a way that 
includes the comments of others, and if so I apologize. I just 
wonder what such kinds of questions are leading to? If it is an 
attempt to trivialize the messenger, and therefor the message, I 
must protest and will continue to do so. Too much is at stake in our 
time to do otherwise, as I see it. 
> 
> Doesn't the material speak for itself, 
> 
> NO! NO!! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!
> 
> That is the crucial conceit of fundamentalism. "Our body of revealed
> wisdom cannot be approached with the tools of the critical intellect."
> But no material speaks for itself to the extent that it is morally
> wrong to investigate it historically-- which seems to be what you're
> implying.

As I said before, the critical intellect only goes so far. In my view, 
the material in question, the ancient wisdom, called theosophy, as 
revealed by the writings of HPB, goes much much farther, and 
cannot be accessed by the intellect alone.
> 
> and suggest, even, 
> > that we investigate it with our own faculties, not taking anyone
> > else's word for its validity? 
> 
> Taking everyone's words and weighing them against our own
> observations.

using all our faculties, not just the intellect, would be more along 
the lines of my thinking.

Paul, it seems that we have hashed and rehashed this subject 
pretty well. I don't mind continuing, if you wish, but I would like it to 
be clear that I represent myself, my own understanding, only, and 
that I have no intention of trying to prove that you or anyone is 
wrong. There is room for all here. And thanks for responding to my 
questions and comments. It seems like we have quite a great 
opportunity, in lists such as this, to communicate with others whom 
we most likely would not encounter otherwise, and surely much 
good can come from honest and sincere discourse.

Best wishes,
Adelasie