Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00315)

Nov 16th 1997

Dear Bruce:

Where the practice of "Universal Brotherhood" is most strongly recommended,
it draws the greatest stress. This fulfils several laws, and in
considering these we are told :

1st, it attracts to its focus those who have an innate sense of the value
of such a practice, and also who have a desire to apply it themselves, as a
discipline, and for the benefit of others, as a gift.

2nd. It may imply a learning stage in "psychic, and spiritual" development
-- something which may be pursued over several lives.

3rd. It is observed that anyone who sets this self-discipline into action
attracts to themselves not only their own reaction from the selfish aspects
of their personality, which resent a broadening out to the Universal, and
therefore a surrendering of what they consider thier "secure retreat." But
a secondary reaction is also to draw the instinctive attention of others
who are in a similar condition -- and they either help the one who aspires
or add to the opposition. In any case their is a churning in the inner
nature, in the character, and this is a kind of testing of the
determination and the will of he or she who makes such a decision. Perhaps
this is most noticable around "theosophical centers." And I would add that
the clarity and purity of the Theosophical ideas that are considered at
such centers produces versions of these two contrasting results which
involve individuals who get together. Joining any kind of church or
association does not of itself provide protection or any significant
enhancement of abilty. I have noticed that usually all the actual results
of effort fall on the individual involved. And the results, while shared,
are really focused on the one who starts and maintains sush an aspiration
in practice.

As an example look at Gandhi as an objective example of one who chose to
use non-violence and practice it in spite of all pressures -- I see a new
film is out on his early life -- his Autobiography is well worth reading.
Non-violence, as an idea and a practice is a tremendous force, and brings
to a focus some wonderful depths to charcter -- which all can both envy and
emulate.

So it is but natural, as you observe that the Theosophical societies and
other bodies, and the members and students attracted to them, put
themselves under such stresses, which the average person has no idea of.
Sometimes they are totally unconscious of this occuring, and may not notice
it until they take time-out to review changes and improvements (or the
reverse) in themsleves and others around them.

Now, as I see it, the T S is only a part of the great moral movement which
is always in the world, and operates under other names and circumstances,
supported by many of those who do not advertise, for money or personal
fame. The T S was given a splendid start, from the highest of Those
responsible for such things, which, to me indicates its opportunity -- or
rather the opportunity for all those who have taken a hand in its
development and history. But the "body" as such, means little, as it is
the individual development of its members is solely in their own hands.

A study of the many letters, articles, etc... to be found in early books
and issues of magainse such as THEOSOPHIST (Vols. 1 - 10), THE PATH
(Vols. 1 - 10) and LUCIFER (Vols 1 - 10), will give information that might
be valuable for the determined sudent to use if he wants to find examples
of the working of karma in these matters.

It is said that "those who know, dont say; and those who say, don't know."

The injunction given to the Buddhist Bhikku, to be used when he repeats
some aspect of the Buddhist Canon (Law), is to preface his remarks
with:--"Thus have I heard..."

And, in a way, this gives freedom to the other person, the listener to
accept or reject on the basis of his understanding and desire to learn or
to avoid. All true learning follows that pattern. We rise or fall
according to the energy and determination that we put into the effort.

The "Anna Kingford story" is a sad one -- as it illustrates (to me) a lack
of knowledge of Karma, and an impatience in such matters. The passionate
desire to protect the weak that she espoused was not regulated by an
application which she ought to have by then acquired concerning the
thoroughness of the operation of that Law.

Errors in judgment made by others, which we observe, do not entitle to
employ such psychic powers as we might have, to apply punitive or vengeful
conditions in, on or about them. The forces she used (or is said to have
used) were apparently successful (in the way she wanted them to act) -- but
all she did was to link her life and future karma to those unworthy
individuals she is said to have affected.

As I see it, there has to be balance and discrimination, and all factors
ought to be taken into account. HPB was there and could have been
consulted ! It needs the mind of an Adept to see what Karma is, and how it
should be assisted. The maiming, impairing, or killing of another ( in
this life only) is really no punishment at all. We generally make the
error of thinking that capital punishment is the highest of all
punishments. But, if we are immortals and have to live and learn all
together, how can it be a real punishment for another immortal Ego ? No,
in my esteem it is meddling in things of which we have no adequate knowldge
yet.

The Buddha says in DHAMMAPADA: "Putting ones self in the place of another,
one should neither kill, nor cause to be killed."

What else do you think of this idea ?

 Dallas.

==

----------
> From: "Bhive888 (Bruce)" <bhive888@pac.com.au>
> Subject: Re:Re: Saint Germain and Blavatsky
> Date: Sunday, November 16, 1997 7:59 AM
>
>
> Have you not observed that most fights take place in organisations
> dedicated to Universal Brotherhood?
>
> >>
> I'd like to take this up later in reference to the Anna Kingsford story.
> Bruce
>
>.com.