Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00028)

PJ wrote:

> 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.

That efflorescence of personality which is pure and ennobling may, if
cemented to Buddhi, claim a stake to 'immortality'.  The personality
receives the en-lightening element from above (Atma-Buddhi) via the *higher*
Manas.  It seems the higher qualities are rooted in the personal by virtue
of impersonal motive/thought, not through any inherent virtue of the
personality itself (the latter being merely a tool).  This said, it seems a
bit of "Catch 22" situation.  Individuality needs Quaternary in order to
'earth' itself in the proverbial mud of ex-istence.  No mud, no growth.

<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.

Failure and success are, per se, relative terms.  We "fail" in one life only
to (hopefully) "succeed" in another.  Nevertheless, the dangers of failed
Chelaship are very real and doubtless entail karmic consequences extending
over many lives.  Such consequences are likely to be considerably more
far-reaching than your average Joe and Janet Public.  The process of
chelaship involves fanning latent 'seeds' - good, bad and indifferent - into
active fruition. Selfish motive can bare but evil fruit and chelas seeking
*personal* advantage, powers and/or forcing the eye of the Master . . . are
all but bound to fail.

Best wishes,
Paul.