Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00330)

In a message dated 1/27/99 8:17:30 PM, Peter wrote:

<<>>  And it is
> >'through' the personal vehicle in each incarnation that most of us either
> >help or hinder the forward movement of humanity.  As we know from the
> >theosophical teachings  the conscious link with our higher nature is one
> >that has to be forged during incarnation.  Humanity as a whole
> seems to be
> >incredibly identified with the personality doesn't it.  This
> identification
> >won't go away, in my view, just by saying the personality isn't
> important.

[Paul responds] How important is the "personality" compared to Humanity as a
Whole?>>

Now I get to be the one who complains about a thread going on and on and ON
endlessly.  It seems to me very obvious that Peter is taking HPB's view about
how we daily interact with the world.  We have a lower vehicle, it dominates
our consciousness on this plane, and we need to move with respect for others
AND their lower selves, even if the ultimate goal is to make the lower vehicle
utterly transparent to the Higher Self.  But the truth is, this particular
thread developed because Paul was attempting to justify his rudeness and
sarcasm through claiming the lower self isn't real, and Peter called him on it
(gently).

I guess I'm just not so gentle.

So what is the lesson here?  Because there is *really* no lower self, we can
sting the lower self of others with impunity, and consider it a great service
to them?   Because there is *really* no passage of time in the Great Breath,
we shouldn't plan for tomorrow? Because there is *really* no physical
ownership, taking whatever we want is okay?  Because there is *really* no
importance in the material body, murder is okay?

But we know that motive is the Great Determinor, and I think 99% of all
insults come from a low space in us, a desire to "get back" at some one who
has hurt us in some physical or psychological way.  (What do you think, Jerry?
You're the professional here)

Paul, you quote idealistic passages from the Gita and the Voice, proving that
we should all be acting light-years ahead of where we are, and utterly
unconcerned about the lower self.  In fact, you seem to suggest we should
ignore it, and learn to be as sarcastic as HPB in some of her writings.  First
of all, none of us are HPB, as you have been so brilliantly arguing for weeks.
We can't come close to her.  So how can we justify behaving like her?  "Follow
not me nor my path, but the one I show" she wrote.  Secondly, HPB almost never
has barbs aimed at individuals; rather, she attacks large and negative
institutions, like the Church, brahminism, East Asian Buddhism, etc.

It seems, Paul, you want to have it both ways: you say don't ever, ever
criticize HPB, because we can never reach to Her level; but act just like we
have the wisdom and authority she has to criticize others and hurl insults.

So where does our FIRST OBJECT come in, that of universal brotherhood?

Rich