[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re:Disdain for personality

Apr 24, 1998 11:49 AM
by Brenda S Tucker

At 10:26 AM 4/24/98 -0700, you wrote:
>> Brenda S. Tucker wrote
>> Maybe you are a "gentler" soul because you insist on Purity of the Heart,
>> but not of the body. Our "difficult" lives have two purposes, to recognize
>> our human nature and get it under control and to convey that "human" is not
>> satisfactory in others.
>What exactly is "purity" and "impurity" when applied to people? Are
>these things absolutes? Can another person really determine these values
>for you? I doubt it. As group and social constructs are they relative
>and cultural? ... undoubtedly. If you set yourself up to be the personal
>arbiter of what is "good" or "bad" in being "human," you assume
>authority and posit a moral and ethical position that you can hardly
>defend independently, beyond the scope of your personal opinion. Even
>social agreements of legal and political systems depend upon some form
>of consensus that does not equate with absolute values. History teaches
>as much.


You are a designer and an illustrator. When people work with literary
works, words become the tools we use to present pictures. I agree with what
you are saying, but I don't really know why you are saying this. Perhaps to
teach me. Well, I'm not trying to live up to "anyone's" particular idea of
purity. I am trying to live up to ideals of purity in theosophy and at the
I AM. This, and I think everyone would agree, is vegetarianism,
abstaining from alcohol and drugs, and a temperate sex life. Also, we could include
some positives, like regular service, meditation, and study, for example.

What's neat is that personal FREEDOM is also a very big issue both at the
T.S. and the I AM. No one is forcing you to accept these ideals, but if you
do, then you are received into their fold for a time, to associate and try
to be productive.

>Who is it that "recognizes and gets the human nature under control?"
>Who is it that is unconditionally fit to judge what is or is not
>satisfactorily "human" in others? Dangerous questions, I say. What do
>you think?

I felt that I knew what "human" was, but even in the SD, there are places
(which could go without notice) where HPB mentions the "completely human"
being, as if our first couple races are not strictly what is meant by
human. By process of analogy, it could be postulated that "completely
human" is something we are leaving behind. As we progress into sixth and
seventh races, it can be comprehended that we also leave behind our
"humanity." In this sense of the word, I think we are forced to accept the
word in a particular sense and not expand it even to cover the seven races
of man. Especially along with my study of the I AM, they corroborate HPB
and use decrees where "human" is to be left behind. We are to view the
human as that which errs. "To err is human." I'm sure you've heard this is
like a watchword for the concept of human. So, with this prerequisite, can
you answer more satisfactorily some of those questions above.

>> I think you are more satisfied because you have achieved success, but many
>> of us do not find success to the point that we can say strong tactics are
>> unnecessary. We want to annihilate crime, poverty, ignorance, and these
>> goals are not unreasonable ones. Just because we stand on the side of
>> "good" and virtue happening in our world, that stand in life doesn't create
>> the disintegration of all evil. Where if we do both, nourish the good and
>> annihilate the wrongdoing we encounter, this is more indicative of success.
>How can this be other than personal and individual work without assuming
>unjust authority over others? Even in democratic societies, this
>function is at best a personal responsibility. Even with value consensus
>as the binding force of group activity, it is still dependent on the
>continual support of sustained personal values and commitment. The
>individual person is always the common denominator. This necessitates
>personal responsibility.

Well, we begin to view the individual in a new way. I, as an individual, am
not required to make decisions alone. I may make my decisions in life with
Christ's guidance and as life gets more and more complicated, Christ will
become more and more of a necessity. Without Christ, I fall flat on my
face: I make grave errors and I may even end up in jail. Those poor
prisoners need better techniques to live by. If you have any designs for
them, let's try it.

>> When the day comes that we include our "adept brethern" in the scenario, we
>> are bowing out, so to speak, of the mainstream of cause and effect, and
>> asking their participation to the point that we are here to serve as their
>> focus of power. Even when we insist on purity of conditions in physical
>> life, it is for their purpose in finding ease in their feelings and release
>> of power through us. It is not because we enjoy it. It is to thank them
>> for ennobling us to accomplishment great feats and not to take that
>> credit upon our lowly selves.
>Whatever interior symbols or figures you may embody your spiritual
>values in, you are still personally responsible whenever you ensoul
>these values into action. I personally do not agree with your
>attribution of these values to structures independent of the SELF. To my
>view, any characterization of "Masters" are only showing me qualities
>and attributes of "SELF." Their relation to my personality is entirely

>an individual matter.

You know, this is my failsafe. Here I can just answer you that I did not
dream this up myself. I did not design myself a magnificent framework. It
was provided for me. I READ these ideas in both theosophy and the I AM, but
not did understand what I was reading until two years ago. This is why I
don't have an arguement for you. You did not get this from your reading and
do not see this in the literature and I do.

>In the final result, we are all basically "on our own." (alone = AL[L]
>ONE).Responsibility is ours. "Masters" and "Gurus" should be taken as
>symbols for unrealized SELF. Any relationship that keeps you perennially
>or personally dependent on sustaining an I-and-Other relationship with
>supposed "Masters" is only creating a dependency that will inhibit your
>true liberation. Sit with your statues and devotional imaginations until
>either you or your "Master" disappears. Statues are also good for
>firewood. Sutras for cleaning up one's bottom.

>> Balance is always an
>> achievement so great I must pass it on to the "greater" lives around us and
>> though you speak of warfare in terms of what you have read, realistically,
>> calls for peace and the annihilation of war are more to my liking. Don't
>> take yourself so seriously. Annihilate wrong in all cases and not anything
>> you deem useful.
>Does this attitude keep your consciousness in the separative
>personality? Is that OK with you? Do you recognize and accept the
>implications? Is it an important question to you when the integral
>relationship starts?

I've been living this way for two reasons. It might be productive if I
continue it. AND others might grasp it when they didn't feel inclined to
treat themselves to the path of occultism. When most of us made decisions
to walk the path, we began working for initiation or release of our soul
energies and powers. This isn't what I'm doing SINGLY anymore. I also want
to benefit the lives which I believe are "integral" in a new way. I am not
pretending to know how to do this other than follow the teachings. I WISH
that others would let the "seven race concept" ring true to them and begin
to investigate and teach their thinking on the matter. Most often, I just
tell myself, perhaps prisoners would respond to this type of futuristic
thinking. AND I talk to a few acquaintances.

I'm not denying I need guidance. I don't even know for sure that I should
keep working on this supposition. Without communicating and finding
resonance out there in society, it seems largely something that will take
me away from realism as it stands today. Can I still be realistic with
others? Will I mentally become unbalanced by this activity and the strain I
feel dealing with others?

In answer to your question above, the idea is that my consciousness should
ascend and find its home in the higher mental body and in the Presence
where I can participate in activities and energies which are COSMIC,
ASCENDED MASTER, and ANGELIC. This is far beyond what I am capable of
attaining as a "human" and is not equivalent to hiding in the personality.
Any suggestions from people here are welcome. I would especially like to
find myself back in that place where I can read and study from experts and
not be on the forefront of something I'm not equipped to deal with. So any
of you authorities and experts, feel welcome.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application