Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00587)

> The only thing that
>is purely OURS is our identity, and this we can local neither
>physically, psychically, and we do sense that it is "SPIRITUAL,"
>but we do not have direct access from this embodied mind to IT.
>

I would rather say "sense of identity." This is a nit-pick, but
our identity changes by the hour, while we always seem to
have a sense of identity. Even in amnesia, the sense of an
identity is there, but what that identity is, is gone.

>Every ancient esoteric school, including Theosophy states that
>moral refinement and universalizing our perception (brotherhood
>in actuality) are the real tools.
>

I seriously challenge you on this one. This is a typical Theosophical
statement that just isn't true. Tools, perhaps. But "real" tools implies
the only ones or best ones, and I doubt that. As a matter of fact, it
is Theosophy's emphasis on ethics and morals as a first step along
the Path that drew me into it. I have not found that idea elsewhere.

>If we insist on being selfish, if we insist on securing a key to
>"sudden enlightenment" -- as the Chinese peasant did when he
>suddenly remembered the wisdom he had acquired in his past lives,
>and brought it into being when he heard the verses from the
>"Diamond sutra," [ and that experience appears chronologically,
>to have antedated the Buddha ! ] we are going to be disappointed.
>

Why so? I guarantee that without expectation, nothing will happen.
It has been my experience that storming the Gates of Heaven is
the only real way to get anywhere. The Path as espoused by HPB
and other Theosophical writers is a long slow safe path that I have
doubts will take one very far, though I could be wrong. All I can really
say is that it didn't work for me. I stormed the gates, and am
currently working out my own salvation thank you very much.

>If we rail against HPB and accuse her of poor English ! -- well,
>you try and write a
>Secret Doctrine !

Please read My Books and you will see that she accuses herself of
this very thing. She admits it, why can't you?

> -- her mastery of the English language ( and
>you can also use for comparison the English used by the Mahatmas
>in Their letters) you will find that few can exceed them in
>clarity of expression and in presentation.
>

This is pretty subjective stuff and relative to the reader. I have
not found it to be so. Ramakrishna, for example, is easier for me
to read. G de P and Judge are clear. The SD is hardly clear. Most
folks haven't a clue what she is saying. Please don't forget here
that the average person in the US today reads at the 7th grade
level.

>It is our impatience, basically, which makes us anxious to "have
>it all" before we are ready. I would say that the evidence of
>such anxiety is a demonstration of our unreadiness.

I seriously disagree Dallas. It is my experience that the anxiety
envolved in spiritual development stems from the readiness
of the inner Self to burst forth. Just the opposite of what you say
here.

> Many years
>ago the brother of the present Dalai Lama wrote an autobiography
>and detailed the educational process used in Tibet and at the
>lamaseries. If we desire to approach Theosophy and to understand
>it, we will have to undergo a process similar to that, so that
>the personal consciousness is made ready to penetrate to the
>esoteric instructions already embodied in the exoteric
>literature.
>

Your idea here is good, but unworkable. The Dali Lama et al had
gurus who knew what they were talking about. The modern
Theosophical movement has no living gurus today, that I know of.
All we have are writings, and they are all subject to interpretation
and are exoteric mind-brain-knowledge stuff anyway.

>None of this is directed at anyone in particular, it is only an
>expression of what I have observed in myself, and in others.

OK, but I have observed a lot of opposite stuff. Whose right?
I don't know.

>Those who happen to have a copy of Mr. W. Q. Judge's AN EPITOME
>OF THEOSOPHY could turn to pages 13-14, and especially to pp.
>24-26. there the rules and regulations of spiritual education
>and enhancement are clearly outlined. HPB's PRACTICAL OCCULTISM
>[Lucifer Vol. 2, p. 150 ] also gives an outline of the "rules"
>that will have to be followed.
>

I would challange anyone to find enlightenment from following
these, or any other, such rules. They set forth a groundwork of
sorts, but thats about all. Rules such as those of HPB are fine in
a monastic setting which includes knowledgable gurus. They
mean little in today's world. They have certainly not helped me
much. I doubt that they would help you. Have you tried them?
Did they enlighten you at all? Did your following them help
humanity at all?

>Finally, it is only in the "core teachings," in the "Original
>Teachings of Theosophy" that can be found clear directions to the
>inner advancement that may be desired.
>

Again, I challenge this kind of statement. The core teachings, if
you will, provide a heady theoretical framework from which to
tread a spiritual path, but provide almost nothing about technique
that we in the modern West can use to tread that path. Maybe
it all comes down to motive and goal? What is our real goal
here? Is it to be the bodhisattva? Or is it to be an enlightened
Buddha? My own feeling on this is that it is highly personal and
should remain a secret within each person.

>There is a great distinction between psychism (which is selfish
>and emotional, and a refuge for those who are curious) and the
>spiritual ( which is wide, profound, true, and impersonally
>benevolent).

Now we get into psychism bashing, a favorite past time for
Theosophists, but one that I dislike. Psychism is rather like a
car. A car can be used to get from one place to another. It can
also be used to run someone over. Psychism per se is seeing
into the etheric, astral, and mental planes. Period. Selfishness
is in the person who practices it, but doesn't have to be.
There is nothing selfish or emotional per se with psychism.

>Those who read THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE that HPB
>dedicated to the "Few," will grow to understand what is the
>self-discipline that is first needed before one can acquire some
>beginnings of esoteric knowledge.
>

This is condescending Dallas, and I am surprised at you. BTW,
I challange your last idea that self-discipline is "first needed"
etc. Its certainly a safer approach, but hardly a necessary one.

Jerry S.