Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00340)

>>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)>>

Actually Rich, I think only a small part comes from the desire for
revenge on someone (maybe this is wishful thinking on my part?). Most
insults, I think, come from psychological projection of our own fears
and prejudices onto others and this won't end until we do a lot of
introspection and soul-searching within ourselves.

But this whole thread does touch on an interesting idea--that of the
illusionary nature of the lower self contrasted with the reality of the
higher self.  The business of "To dismiss people as illusory parts seems
un-theosophical for me." is exactly the main difference between the
Theravadin and Mahayanist. We can only enter Nirvana ourselves if we
pretty much hold the view that others are illusory and really don't need
our help.

Jerry S.


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

> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:52:20 -0800
> From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval@nwc.net>
> Subject: RE: Practical theosophy: The TWO SELVES in the Bhagavad Gita

Jan 27th 1999

In the 6th chapter of the B. GITA Krishna starts by telling
Arjuna
that the ultimate results of the intellectual and analytical
school ( Sankhya) and the devotional practical school (Yoga) are
the same when combined with wisdom and experience:  "...a
renouncer of action and a devotee of right action...No one
without having preciously renounced all intentions can be
devoted."  [ GITA Ch. 6, pp. 45-6 ULT Edn.)

Detachment from anticipated results is to be replaced by an
impersonal weighing of that which is "right to be done" under the
circumstances - something which any right-minded individual would
do - taking universal ethics and morality into account.  In other
words, putting our personal preferences aside and doing "the
right thing."   Not easy !  But if we were to take the attitude
that all the time our actions are open to everyone to look into,
we would perhaps act more impartially, impersonally and honestly
with everyone.

Meditation can be attained when "he hath renounced all intentions
and is devoid of attachment to action in regard to objects of
sense..."  On p. 47 he then proceeds to show Arjuna how the 2
"Self's" in man interact.

"He should raise the [lower, embodied] self by the Self [the
imperishable Spirit/Soul],  let him not suffer the Self to be
lowered;  for Self {the Higher] is the friend of self [the
lower], and, in like manner, self [the lower] is its own enemy."

The play on the Higher and the Lower Self is explained by HPB in
the KEY TO THEOSOPHY in those pages where she details the
qualities and potentials of the Higher and the Lower Mind
(Manas).  [KEY, pp. 171-186]

The three lines of evolution (SD I 181) are to be seen active in
us.  The physical body gives residence to the embodied Mind [the
lower] and the Higher Mind acts as its Tutor/Mentor - through
intuition and the "voice of Conscience."

The rest of that chapter from then on is Krishna's explanation of
this philosophical system.

That is how I see it.

Dallas.

> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:46:33 -0700
> From: "Daniel H Caldwell" <blafoun@azstarnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Or a distraction from the true message of Theosophy

Daniel wrote:

> >
> >But the question to ask is whether what Rich is encouraging is REALLY
"a
> >distraction from the true message of Theosophy."  It could be a
distraction but
> >again maybe it is not.
> >
> >Concerning the naturalist Quatrefages:  Since HPB mentions and quotes
from his
> >works on dozens of pages in the Secret Doctrine, why is it a
distraction or
> waste
> >of time
> to try to gain *some* background information on this scientist and his
> >work?  I would suggest that knowing something about this scientist
and his
> theories
> >might help the student understand (mentally/and-or/intuitionally)
more
> fully what
> >Madame Blavatsky is writing about.  Is this so bad????????

Tony replied:

>
> There is nothing bad about it.  It just seems upsidedown.

Daniel comments:
Maybe it is upsidedown.  But exactly what do you mean by that word?  Can
you put
into words for this forum what you are actually "getting at"?
Furthermore, how are
suggesting that one should pursue it "rightsideup".


Daniel wrote:

>
> >Another example out of 10,000:  thoughout many of HPB's writings,
starting with
> >ISIS UNVEILED, we find references to Norse mythology, Odin, Thor,
etc.  If the
> >reader knows little or nothing about this Norse (Germanic)
literature, then
> I would
> >think that many of HPB's comments and insights might go right over
the
> student's
> >head.  Simply acquainting oneself with the basic knowledge about
Norse
> mythology
> >might help one to understand HPB's text better.  Is this a
distraction from the
> >true message of Theosophy?

Tony replied:

> Interestingly, we are at opposite ends again Daniel.  It can be
helpful.
> Why not look at it the other way round?
> Because of THEOSOPHY and HPB, we are now able to understand the basics
of
> Norse mythology.
> Hopefully you agree with this too?

Daniel comments:

Well, I don't know if I agree because I'm not really sure I understand
what you are
conveying in your above statement.  I can reread and reread what HPB
says about
Norse mythology but unless I know the basic stories, themes, gods, etc.
of this
mythology, I will probably not be in a good position to understand what
HPB is
conveying in her commentary on this subject.  In other words, HPB does
not narrate
all of Norse mythology and then comment on it.  She offers comments,
very
insightful, etc., but unless I know enough about Norse mythology in and
of itself,
many of her comments will go right over my head.

Okay, I'm at my "end".  Please tell me what is at your end?  I have no
idea what is
over there at your end.  I would hope you would attempt to describe your
view.  I
must say that in many respects your comments and your views appear more
enigmatic to
me than what HPB and the Mahatmas have written!!!

I certainly agree with the statement that HPB's writings can help us to
understand
the inner meaning of Norse mythology.


Daniel wrote:

> >I personally like to read what HPB writes and I try to understand
what she is
> >getting at.  But many times I have to educate myself in this or that
subject in
> >order to appreciate what HPB is writing about.  I believe this is
part of
> what Rich
> >was trying to convey.

Tony replied:

>
> That is your approach, and that is fine, but there other ways too.

I'm sure there are other ways.  But I am trying to understand what ONE
of those
other ways are which you mention but as far as I know have not outlined
and
described.

And let me say that I am not describing YOUR way as a "distraction".  I
believe it
was you who suggested that Rich's approach was possibly a "distraction".
   And you
seemed to imply even more by the following words:

"The outer man, the inner (Astral?) man, and the inner spiritual man.
Which do you
feel may be leading you to 'Accompanying notes to last century's people
and ideas,
as well as technical terms in other languages'?"

If you are even faintly suggesting that Rich's approach is that of the
"outer man"
and that your approach is that of "the inner spiritual man", then would
you please
for Rich's benefit as well as for others on this list, please, please
describe your
approach?? Others might actually benefit.


------------------------------

End of theos-talk-digest V1 #697
********************************