Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00400)

I'm sorry, Tony, but I disagree with your interpretation and think
distinctions like that (whether you want to call it "discrimination" or
not) can lead to a whole lot of other kinds of more nefarious
"discrimination," like racism, sexism and fanaticism. I just don't
believe that you have the only handle on what is or isn't "spiritually
pristine." If it works for you, great. But it doesn't for me. Love and
acceptance in the heart is the "pristine purity" I acknowledge.

I believe that people who disdain the lower principles create all kinds
of unhealthy problems for themselves by setting up unnecessary and
rejective inner conflicts. I opt for acceptance and an understanding
that does not shun away from them. It's my personal choice. But it
doesn't have to be yours.

Mark

alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> To form the nucleus (i.e. MANAS) of a Universal Brotherhood (i.e.
> >> atma-buddhi are the universal principle(s)) of Man, without distinction of
> >> race, colour, sex or creed (i.e. without distinction of the 4 lower
> >> principles). Once the teachings fall into the area of the 4 lower
> >> principles of "race," "colour," "sex," or "creed" they lose their pristine
> >> purity.
>
> Mark writes:
> >Huh? Until we all live in Buddhi, we've got to get all this stuff (i.e.,
> >buy the books, go to the meetings, type on the lists, etc.) while we're
> >in the booty!
> >
> >You're not one of those theosophists who disdains personality, are you?
> >Your "pristine purity" stuff gives me the shakes.
>
> The "pristine purity" stuff as you like to call it, certainly isn't mine,
> and in this case it relates to the teachings. But you have the point
> precisely - they (the pristine pure teachings) do shake the poor old
> personality - why do you think so many shy away from them?
>
> Tony