Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00561)

April 27th 1998

Dear Thoa:O

All that you write about our personal ego, the embodied self
producing argument and defense is so true.

It is also true that neither HPB nor the Masters, nor anyone
else of the Great Ones need be defended -- from one point of
view -- their lives and words speak for themselves and are their
defense.

However if we are to honor their example of truth-living, it is
our responsibility to set others right, if w notice that they are
misunderstood. it is a thankless task in most cases, for people
(personalities) will insist on seeing things "their way."

 I was sure you'd understand. thanks
Dallas.

>From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" <thoalight@aol.com>
>Date: Saturday, April 25, 1998 7:03 PM
>Subject: Same Objects but.....

>Dear Dallas,
>
>Walt Whitman illustrated an important point. There will always
be variety.
>Variety causes dissension due to personal egos and limited
viewpoints.
>Even when we defend something that we think is worth defending,
we can
>trace that to personal ego also. We defend it because an
opposing
>viewpoint threatens our personal ego. Defending the Masters,
HPB,
>Krisnamurti, political viewpoints, your country and etc., are
actually a
>defending of the personal ego. I am not saying this is good or
bad. I am
>saying that is what it is. That is its function. It is
actually a
>function of the personal ego, and is necessary, just as having a
body is
>necessary. The thing is that when we are out in the world, on
this list,
>wherever, and we are defending, realize that is what it is.
Does the
>Masters, HPB, or Krisnamurti care whether we defend them or not?
No. If
>they're in some non-earthly place, they probably know that it
doesn't
>matter. If we study our personal ego very carefully, we will
see that we
>were actually defending our personal self when we state our
case, whether
>it be years of devotion and study, personal independence, or
other causes.
>
>The problem comes when we don't realize that we are actually
arguing for
>our personal egos. We place huge emphasis on the importance of
the cause,
>we sacrifice more, or we demonize opposing viewpoints. I'm not
saying that
>we shouldn't oppose when we feel something is wrong. I'm saying
that by
>realizing that it is our personal ego that we are defending, we
can call a
>square a square.
>
>If we look at the history of Theosophy, we can see how personal
egos have
>caused dissension and separation of various theosophical groups.
Just
>viewing the various theosophical lists, we can see this in
action.
>
>Thoa :o)

----------

 YOU ARE SO RIGHT Dal.
>===========================================

>>Reminds me of a lovely poem of Walt Whitman :
>>
>>
>>That we all labor together transmitting the same charge and
>> succession,
>>>>We few equals indifferent of lands, indifferent of times,
>>>>We, enclosers of all continents, all castes, allowers of all
>> theologies,
>>>>Compassionaters, perceivers, rapport of men,
>>>>We walk silent among disputes and assertions, but reject not
the
>> disputes nor anything that is asserted,
>>>>We hear the bawling and din, we are reached at by divisions,
>> jealousies, recriminations on every side,
>>>>They close peremptorily upon us to surround us, my comrade,
>>>>Yet we walk upheld, free, the whole world over, journeying up
and
>> down till we make our ineffaceable mark upon time
and the diverse
>> eras,
>>>>Till we saturate time and eras, that the men and women of
races,
>> ages to come, may prove brethren and lovers as we
are.
>>
>> -- Walt Whitman
>>
>>I think there is a lot for us as students of Theosophy to think
>>about in this poem .
>> Dallas
>