Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00128)

You may find a great deal of help on this subject in "Light on The Path"
by MC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval@nwc.net>
> Sent:	Monday, March 16, 1998 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re:Theos World - "Golden Precepts" of GdeP
>
> MKR -- I think you are quite right.  When we "forget ourselves" we
> then can
> act from a more universal basis -- but even then, it is better to act
> with
> a "knowledge of Law," than to guess at it, no matter how well
> intentioned.
>
> There used to be a saying:  "The road to hell is paved with good
> intentions!"  An old student of Theosophy was heard to say:  "It is
> better
> to have it paved, than not paved at all."
>
> My 2 pies worth !			Dallas
>
>
>
>                                                           W. Dallas
> TenBroeck
>
> dalval@nwc.net
>
>
>
> ----------
> | From: "M K Ramadoss" <ramadoss@eden.com>
> | Subject: Re:Theos World - "Golden Precepts" of GdeP
> | Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 9:08 PM
> |
> | Hi
> |
> | Here is an analogy which may help you to relate what he seems to be
> | talking. I am just attempting to understand.
> |
> | When you are deeply involved or concerned about someone you care
> about at
> | that moment (could be helping, defending etc) -- it could be even a
> | stranger -- there is an element of self forgetfulness and in that
> state
> you
> | do not "think" about your selves and the other person as
> individuals. You
> | are just concentrated and immersed in solving the problem at hand.
> One
> may
> | attain a stage when you see the silliness and stupidity of others,
> then
> | there may be no need to defend oneselves.
> |
> | My 0.02
> |
> | MK.  R.
> |
> |
> |
> | At 11:16 AM 3/14/1998 +1200, you wrote:
> | >Hi all,
> | >
> | >    Would anyone mind discussing Purucker's Golden Precepts of
> | >Esotericism?    Much of it I can grasp and accept as practical,
> e.g.
> | >impersonality and love.   But he speaks of defending others, never
> | >oneself.   As I understand it, he tells us that the initiate
> forgets the
> | >own self and lives entirely for others.  Living for others is fine
> by
> | >me; I think we should all devote some of our incarnations purely
> for
> | >others, once we are fit enough.   What I don't understand is the
> | >teaching that the chela does not stand up if only to defend
> | >him/herself.   GdeP wrote:
> | >
> | >    >Never strike back; never retaliate; be silent; be patient.
> Protect
> | >others; protect yourself not at all.
> | >
> | >    Is the student meant to take this quite literally?   Can
> someone
> | >please discuss this with us?
> | >
> | >    Thank you.
> | >
> | >    Yours,
> | >    Pat F.
> | >
> |
> |
>
>