Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00332)

Dear Richard,

You wrote:
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).

Going down this track will get us to the stage where everyone who has a
different viewpoint will be accused of insults, sarcasm, etc., as an easy
way out.  It is not meant to imply that this is what you are doing now
though Richard.

Actually Richard, unless things have changed dramatically over a short
period of time Peter and Paul are friends.

>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.

But what it would be really interesting to know is, where do you think the
other 1% of insults come from?


(What do you think, Jerry?
>You're the professional here)
Are professionals and experts the only one's who can be taken seriously?

Was MacInroe addressing the higher self, or the personality of the umpire?


 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.

Are you so sure he has been arguing?  It is your word.

>We can't come close to her.
Who was she and what was she?
  So how can we justify behaving like her?  "Follow
>not me nor my path, but the one I show" she wrote.

That is lovely, can you remember where it is written?

Secondly, HPB almost never
>has barbs aimed at individuals;
it depends what we mean by barbs, but there are "individuals" who come to mind.
 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?


Universal Brotherhood is always to be kept before us.  What it means has
changed with the attempt at a greater understanding of Theosophy. The two
Universal principles "in" us are Atma-Buddhi, which have much to do with
what Paul was writing.  If you have something to offer on Universal
Brotherhood Richard, it would be most welcome.

As it appears on the last page of the original SD:
"To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Man without distinction
of race, colour, sex, or creed."

Tony