Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00592)

> Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> > 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.

I don't know. If we can stand the mystery of the awful silence in the
void between breaths, heartbeats and our incessant impulse to say "I
AM," then we might start to understand something.

> > 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.

What does "universalizing our perception" mean with respect to trying to
understand the mystery of identity?

What is "good," if not the realization of the light of original nature?

> > 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.

Buddha asked for the sessation of attachment and desire, but still
wanted us to desire our own enlightenment. If the crack of an ax wakes
us up, who are we to argue?

> 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.

It's one thing to wind one's way around the mountain, trodding year
after year, round and round and round. The trail is so well worn. It's
quite another to attempt a bee-line straight for the top, zealous and
unprepared. What a thrill! What an adventure! It's altogether a
different thing to sit still and realize that you are the mountain, the
pilgrims, the drudgery and the adventure, and that there's really
nothing much to do.

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

If you know what you're doing, you can scratch the whole mess into the
dirt with a little stick.
You can even abbreviate it all with the shorthand of a single point, or
better yet, throw the stick away and be the unspoiled ground itself.
Flowers will bloom naturally. Little varmints will squeak their poops
out in all of the hidden places.

> 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.

What's clearer than the single bloom the Buddha silently held up? Even
now, the deer, when they remember, drop the grass from their mouths.

> 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.

Somewhere, I have to believe, she is chuckling at our pitious
misfortune. Ignorance may be bliss, ... but it's still ignorance.

> > 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.

What if you are already ready but you just don't believe it?

> 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.

Knowing and not knowing, Knowing and not knoiwing. Ping-pong. Ping-pong.
The match is always a draw.

> > 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.

That sounds extremely difficult and rigorous. It must be the true way.

> 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.

They might be good tax deductible donations, though.

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

So, it's just in yourself and in others then?

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

I don't know either. I know absolutely nothing.

> > 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.

My God, if we were ever to follow them, what might be the result?

> 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?

I think, at least, Dallas ought to give them a try, don't you?

> > 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.

Saying nothing. Making no outward gesture. Everything is revealed.

> > 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.

That psychism is nasty stuff. When I tried it, my karma ran over my
dogma.

> > 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.

Anything that keeps me reading in the library.

Giving voice to God's annoying shadow,
Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com