Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00535)

> Brenda S. Tucker wrote
>
> Mark,
> 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.

I hope being a designer and an illustrator does not exclude me from
understanding the use of language. I am glad that you are trying to live
up to what you think 'purity' is. It's undoubtedly a noble effort on
your part and I wish you every success. I don't completely share your
assessment, but I respect your effort.

> 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.

hmmm, "but if you do?"
How do they really treat people who don't, in their judgement, make the
grade?

> >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 understand the attitude of the I AM movement and their use of the word
"human" in the rejective sense. They are not alone in it. I don't
entirely agree with the attitude, or the urgency that sometimes is
pressed upon people to effect it. To my understanding, it can be broadly
taken as disdainful and consequently productive of possibly dangerous
imbalances in the psyche of aspirants and devotees. I understand the
need and the logic of wanting to transcend the human kingdom in the
natural course of monadic evolution. Where I take issue with it is when
this attitude is fostered upon people without first accepting and
understanding the necessity to fully be a healthy human being before
attempting otherwise. To me the Human kingdom is meant to be fully
experienced and participated in as the natural course of development.

A healthy ego and personality are requirements for any full
participation, especially at this time, when our mission as a race is
IMO, to integrate the lower quartenary and align it from within to the
Higher Mind. The process of integration and psychological health and
wholeness, as a personal human being, are far more valuable to true
spiritual growth than a fear-based, premature rejection and splintering
of the student's psyche. I've seen it destroy the health of otherwise
sincere individuals and find those who foster such attitudes prematurely
to be suspect in both their wisdom and authority.

> >> 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.

I don't have any designs for poor prisoners, per se. I'm not
particularly drawn to crisis management. My interests are more of a
tonic nature to the healthy actuality of living spiritualy in the world.
Your references to Christ are interesting to me. If Christ is the "light
of the world", and the "true light that lighteth every man that cometh
into the world," then where in you is the interface between THAT and the
impulse that says "I AM?"

> >> 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.

You exemplify classic devotional guru-yoga. It is a time honored
spiritual traditon and approach. You and your guru(s). Self and
"other(s). All I can say to you is "sit very still until either you or
your guru dissapears."

> >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.

I do understand. But my understanding is that 'Masters' and 'Gurus' are,
as individuals, separate beings from me, just the same as anybody else;
while as symbols, they are my own unrealized SELF, just the same as
anybody else.

> >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.

The work you do on yourself is the greatest gift you can offer another.
Be who you ARE and act from there. There is nothing else to do. Your
action will be without blame.

Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com