Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00345)

Dear Rich,

>  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).

Do cut 'n paste your evidence, Rich, particularly of "rudeness and sarcasm"
(presumably towards Peter).  Question: on what basis do you judge another's
motive?

There is ONE *impersonal* REALITY.

The thread developed as a result of an exchange of views/comments largely
between Peter & Paul.  Unless one is mistaken, an honest opinion is not a
crime (thesophical or otherwise) and honesty should at least include warts
'n all.

As was recently pointed out by Tony, Peter and Paul have been pals for some
years. Peter: if something has changed you'd better shout! Ha:-)

Peter has many, many, fine qualities and is an earnest student of HPB.

> So what is the lesson here?

Not to judge by appearances?

> 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.

Only 99%?

> 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.

Eh?

>  In fact, you seem to suggest we should
> ignore it,
> and learn to be as sarcastic as HPB in some of her
> writings.

Once again, maybe you could cut n' paste where this is the case,
particularly any suggestion to "learn" sarcasm.

>  First
> of all, none of us are HPB, as you have been so brilliantly
> arguing for weeks.

Not aware of arguing anything of the sort.  More cut 'n pasting, please. Why
waste time "arguing" something which is self evident (viz, "none of us are
HPB")?

> We can't come close to her.  So how can we justify behaving like
> her?

Who is it that is justifying behaving like her?

>  "Follow not me nor my path, but the one I show" she wrote.

Follow not "me" nor "my", but "the one".

>  Secondly, HPB
> almost never
> has barbs aimed at individuals; rather, she attacks large and negative
> institutions, like the Church, brahminism, East Asian Buddhism, etc.

Yes, that does seem to be the case.

> It seems, Paul, you want to have it both ways:

Please explain.

> you say don't ever, ever
> criticize HPB,

Cut 'n paste your evidence, please.

> because we can never reach to Her level;

More cut 'n pasting, please.

> 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

Is not the First Object the beginning and the end of our endeavours?

Kindest regards,
Paul