Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00022)

According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com:
Jake wrote:
>
> - -----------------------------------------------------------
>        Have you really stopped and thought just what a
> pathetic and tiny thing the "Personal" is?  The Personal is
> having desires and aims with oneself as the chief
> beneficiary and focus - the rest of the universe is not a
> concern at all.

This seems to polarize and exaggerate.  All the love, respect,
honor, service, etc. that we are capable of is rooted in the
personal.  Every concern we can show for the rest of the universe
is personal.  To the extent that impersonal love is a reality, we
can grasp it through the experience of personal love.  I am
speaking in terms of individual psychological development.

  Is this the qualities of a a god or Logos?
> INDIVIDUALITY is a different thing than personality.  Of
> necessity, the individualities of any beings superior to us
> humans do not have any Personal concerns,

Why is that necessary?

 their
> concerns or motivation is being in perfect harmony in their
> actions with the rest of existence and its direction (plus
> whatever other concerns we can't imagine!) - no Selfish or
> Personal motivations.

This seems dogmatic.  Maybe the selfish and personal motivations
are subordinated to higher ones.  But eating, sleeping, and some
other things are all "selfish and personal" yet necessary for
embodiment.

snip
> personal ego.    It's serious and dangerous stuff.  Its good
> to remember that all the 70 some who tried for chelahood
> except one (Damodar) were big wopping failures with
> ruined lives.

There are many assumptions built into this statement.  Many
theosophists would object that Judge, or Olcott, or Hartmann,
etc. etc. were not big failures with ruined lives.  But even
granting that assumption, the next one is more disputable.  That
is that the conditions of chelaship *per se* are dangerous,
likely to lead to ruined lives in 69/70 cases, and that the
circumstances of HPB's Theosophical recruits are simple
illustrations of this universal truth.  On the other hand, I'd
say that the circumstances in which the various chelas of the
1880s Theosophy found themselves were *particularly* inauspicious
and likely to lead to frustration and discouragement.  Lots of
secrecy, multiple versions of the truth floating around, a
volatile cast of international characters... recipe for disaster.

Cheers,
PJ