Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00251)

Thanks for the follow-up comments:

Paul:
> > There are times when we agree/disagree; quietly or outspokenly;
> > with fervour or with gentleness.  Does it mean we are any
> > the less Brothers?

Peter:
> I guess that depends more on what we feel in our hearts and whether our
> responses are offered in a "brotherly" way rather than on whether we agree
> or disagree with another.

The "brotherly way" may not exclude the use of a verbal/written sting in the
tail if necessity denotes. It is a question of motive.  M. is described
somewhere (ML's?) as appearing "brusque", for example. Truth penetrates and
sometimes the personal creature howls. "You must thoroughly put aside the
personal element if you would get on with occult study . . ." (Letter
XLIII).

> > Are there not some things that it is impossible to
> > take seriously?

> Well that depends on what you mean by "some things."  I try to take the
> person who is talking seriously even if I am having trouble with what they
> are saying.

How seriously can/should we take a bundle of transcient memories called
"me"?  It - the "me" - is a serious impediment, yes.

>  Are you suggesting, Paul, from your first reply
> above, that you
> do not take into account the people who are posting but just
> respond to the
> statements and ideas presented as if they are disconnected from the person
> writing?

Is not our object the progress/elevation of Humanity as a WHOLE?  Why focus
on the illusory 'part'?

As it is a theosophical discussion list, may we not assume that fellow
theosophists/enquirers are content to put themselves, personally, . . .
last?

> So I ask myself, how can I respond in such a way as to help that inner
> understanding, that inner light be more present in this persons
> life?  If I
> attack that persons ideas, motives and character this seems to me to have
> the result of aggravating and strenthening that very part of the
> person that
> I would like to see beyond.  The whole interaction becomes more
> personality
> centred than soul-full.  I have noticed that when I try to go beyond the
> words, to the understanding that this person is trying to articulate then
> there is more of a chance of that soul-full note coming through.  Then
> people are more likely to recognise and let go of their own ignorance in
> thier own time.

By-passing the personality does, indeed, penetrate.

> [Peter wrote:]
> > > To question Theosophy and HPB doesn't necessarily make some one
> > > an enemy of Theosophy and HPB.  In fact, I would argue
> > > that the fiercist enemies of Theosophy, the Dugpas, are those
> > > that know the Theosophical teachings and Laws of Occultism
> > > are real and not those who doubt them.
>
> [Paul replied:]
> > Likewise, questioning/knowledge may not *necessarily* be of theosophical
> > motive.  We all know of entrenched personalities who will question,
> > question, question until the cows come home, not in an endeavour to
> > learn/discover/understand but simply as a means of attention seeking.
>
> Once again, there is truth in your observations Paul.  Some of us *are*
> stuck in our ways and go round in circles.

Only some?

>  We each have our
> stuck areas and
> I feel I am just as likely to get caught up in mine as  anybody else is in
> theirs.  The question is how do we respond.

With intelligence.

>  Do we dismiss or
> condemn or can
> we try and look behind that "attention seeking" (if that's what it is) to
> help the other to be free enough from the 'stuckness' to move on in a more
> soul-full way?

Doubtless we act according to our best ability, considering the *spiritual*
welfare of the 'other' (which is ourself).

All the best,
Paul.