Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00080)

Dear David

You write:

>Regarding my supposed mockery of Tony, reread what I wrote to him twice.  
>I was mocking his supposed superior insight & spiritual standing.  I 
>asked him to get off his high horse & join us common mortals.  

As this is coming up again:

"Men ridicule what they do not properly understand."

And with regard to your repeating the same sentence over and over again,
hundreds (?) of times like some mantram.  It is extremely irresponsibe to do it:

"The *mantram* ignorantly employed may, and often has, proved a treacherous
weapon, whose mystical power has caused it to turn and *stab the user*" (CW
4, p.166)  

If memory serves correctly much of this was about the MAHATMAS.

You write:
>>My motive is to look for the truth on this subject.
And
I consider myself a seeker of truth 
>interested in getting at the facts.

Motive, and right and wrong motives.  
What is right motive?  What does it mean?
Is it about where the motive is based, whether it is more within, or whether
it is outside?  Is it more to the region of higher manas and to the
spiritual, or more towards lower manas?
It may be for motive to be right (?), it is necessary for it to be based in
the inner spiritual being, rather than being based in the outer man?  The
difference is vast. 
Where is the truth you are looking for?  In the outer world or in the inner
world?  In our studies do we attempt to go to the CAUSE, or just play around
with the effects?

>>Are you a member of the D.E.S.?  Have you seen the portraits of Mrs 
>>Blavatsky's Masters in the Esoteric Room at Los Angeles U.L.T. 
>>headquarters?

No to the first.

No to visiting the Esoteric Room.

And no to seeing the portraits within the room.

As far as portraits of the Masters, HPB never saw the Masters as hers, and
always referred to one of them as Master, rather than MY master. Photographs
and otherwise of portraits of the Masters are not that difficult to come by.
A study of the Mahatmas, and some understanding of the Mahatmas, would throw
quite a different light on these matters, and the kind of questions you are
asking would then not arise.  You would no longer call her Mrs Blavatsky and
you would not write about her in terms of her claims, because they would no
longer be claims, and thus quite a different attitude and approach would
arise.  In fact, a far more humble approach.

All good wishes in your Theosophical studies
Tony

  Paint me a 
>"vile dugpa" hell bent on detroying theosophy & the theosophical 
>movement.
Note well David, these are your words.  Perhaps you should be getting off
your high horse:-)





-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.