Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00034)

In response to several comments on my remarks about the deck
being stacked against the Theosophical chelas of the 1880s:
to David Green--- Given the nature of the evidence, every book
trying to offer an interpretation of HPB is "disputable" which is
why new ones keep coming out.  To say that mine are disputable is only to
assert that they are like all the rest.  What some Theosophists choose
*not* to dispute, what they choose *to* dispute, and especially
the tone in which they do so, says more about
them than about the books in question.  You have not responded to
the allegedly disputable assumptions behind my comments, just
expressed disrespect for me as a "disputable" author.

To Paul Bazzer: I suspect that thinking of the personality as "below" and
the individuality as "above" is dangerous.  It takes a convenient
metaphor and turns it into a hierarchy of value.  I prefer to
think of the personality as the exterior, the individuality as
interior.  Agree with the gist of your comments.

To Jake: each of us thinks the other "has it upside down."  If someone hasn't
experienced personal love, s/he cannot be a purveyor of universal
love.  If we don't have a healthy personality due to childhood
experience of giving and receiving love, we have to heal our
aching hearts before we can proceed to the third eye, IMO and
Cayce's.  I see your point, and guess this is a chicken-and-egg
kind of thing.  But my focus was on the individual, yours on the
cosmos.  Yes, there has to be some universal love essence thingie
in the cosmos before there can be personal love in individuals.
But individuals have to experience personal love to get in touch
with the universal.  As for naivete, again, each sees the other
as naive.  I think you naively accept the specific formulations
about chelaship in the Theosophical literature as giving some
kind of timeless essential truth about spiritual progress being
extremely painful and difficult.  The specific historical context
of those particular chelas made it painful and difficult.  In
earlier times chelaship was something much more natural; and in
our time I don't think the essence of spiritual enlightenment and
liberation is nearly as hard to perceive as it was in the late 19th
century.

Cheers,
Paul