Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00343)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:

> 
> If you read my words as indicating that I feel morally or 
spiritually superior to you, please reconsider.

Dear Adelasie,

It's not that straightforward, but the implication is there. People 
who accept HPB's word on everything are superior to those who don't. 
You don't come right out and say that, but in a dozen ways it comes 
out by implication. I'd ask you to reread some of your posts, 
looking for the repeated suggestion that a devout approach to HPB's 
writings is good and right, and a critical approach the opposite. It 
just so happens that you belong to the class that is described as 
superior, and I belong to the class that is described as inferior. 
Not that I take this personally.

For the record, I am very sure 
> that I am not superior to you or any other human being in or out of 
> incarnation, in any way. Such assumption of superiority would 
> indeed cloud issues. Perhaps I don't express myself very well, if 
> some assumption of superiority is the impression I give. 
> > 
Or perhaps by focusing on how one class of readers of HPB is morally 
and spiritually superior to another class, you are missing out on the 
fact that this has personal implications when addressed by a member 
of the allegedly superior (spiritual, constructive) class to a member 
of the allegedly inferior (material, destructive) class. 

> I would suggest that differentiantion is a part of natural law, 
> regarding all phenomena, not something we need to make sure 
> occurs. 

Nor something we need to make sure doesn't occur by stifling all 
points of view except our own! If natural law provided for a 
differentiation in perspectives on HPB during the 1990s beyond the 
old dichotomy saint/sinner, then why should anyone object?

Concentrating on separateness, however, is a choice we 
> make which takes our attention away from the essential unity which 
> is the underlying law of nature, governing all life and all 
phenomena. 
> 
The problem with that is that any objective description of any 
phenomenon at all falls under the category of "concentrating on 
separateness." So all science and history is morally inferior to all 
mysticism, no?

snip
> It is always gratifying to our lower natures to concentrate on 
> personalities instead of principles. 

This is an example of the "mine's better than yours" message that 
gets irritating. People who contentrate on personalities are 
gratifying their lower natures, and are therefore morally and 
spiritually inferior to those who concentrate on principles.
And anyone who wants to know who Blavatsky really was and what she 
actually did *historically* is focusing on her personality and thus 
gratifying their lower nature. Whereas those who choose to view her 
in terms of principles rather than personalities (doctrines rather 
than history) are taking the path of the higher nature. Hmmmm.

In the case of a historical figure 
> like Elizabeth I this may have some justification. She was not a 
> spiritual leader, as far as I know, but a political leader. 

Both.

But in the 
> case of HPB, concentrating on the lower personality seems to take 
> our attention away from the meaning of the work she did.
> 
How would you back up that statement? I'd say exactly the opposite, 
that *avoiding* issues concerning her "lower" personality takes our 
attention away from the *real* meaning of the *real* work she did. 
And focuses it instead on fantasies and myths.

> suffering that our materialistic age has brought upon us. Humanity 
> is like a starving person and theosophy is like a feast spread in 
> front of him,

true in the broadest sense of theosophy, as gnosis

which can provide all the nourishment he needs to go 
> on in his life. We can eat the food, derive the benefit it offers, 
and be grateful, and use it for the good of all, or we can find fault 
with the china it is served upon, or the servants themselves, and 
miss the opportunity to avail ourselves of the benefits it offers.

The metaphor doesn't work because you (consistently I might add) 
write as if intellectual analysis and spiritual appreciation were 
mutually incompatible. Avoiding the subject of HPB, lets put this in 
terms of the historical Jesus. Some would say that he provides 
spiritual nourishment that we can either benefit from, by gratefully 
accepting him, or not benefit from, by analyzing him critically. But 
people can and do analyze the Bible critically without thereby losing 
the benefits of appreciating Jesus's life and mission. The same is 
true of Baha'u'llah, or Mary Baker Eddy, and so on. But in every 
case, those who apply the historical/critical method get based as 
spiritually inferior by those who call it "materialistic."

There is 
> no superiority or inferiority involved. But the two approaches are 
> different. On the one hand we have the opportunity to consciously 
> become more responisible and useful people, and on the other 
> hand, we choose not to avail ourselves of the opportunity.

You may conclude that one doesn't become more responsible and useful 
by devoting his/her energies to scholarly research on figures in 
religious history, but on what evidence? It doesn't fit my 
observation. The process of historical research *in itself* can be 
spiritually nourishing. It seems so easy for you to dismiss the 
years of effort other people put into scholarship, as worthless in 
comparison to uncritical belief. But perhaps if you devoted a decade 
to uncritical belief in HPB, and another decade to 
historical/critical examination of her claims, you'd have a different 
attitude. You'd certainly be able then to speak from personal 
experience on both sides of the fence.

the 
> lower personality, material issues, but in a forum such as this, I 
> must confess it surprises me that people choose such a course. 

HPB herself, of course, discussed these at great length.

> When I realized something of the nature of this ongoing discussion, 
> I wondered why it is occurring, and so asked some questions. I 
> don't deny your right to think or discuss whatever you want, but it 
is difficult for me to understand how someone could come so close to 
> the real thing, and then back away and discuss its trappings, as 
> though they were more real than the essence. 

Your perception of "the real thing" and "its trappings" seems to 
equate to "Theosophical doctrine" vs. "Theosophical history." Well, 
doctrines only occur in history, and therefore history is part of the 
necessary context for understanding doctrines.
> > 
> 
> Yes, it does elude me. I am an intelligent person, and I read a lot 
of material from lots of different sources. I have only my own 
> discernment to rely upon, and I have never come accross anything 
> in my reading of HPB, or WQJ, that did not ring true to me. 

If you keep up the reading, the time will come.

So in 
> this I am different from you.

Either less widely read in HPB's writings, or less willing to face up 
to their problematic (e.g. racist, anti-Semitic) elements.

We don't have to keep discussing this, 
> if it makes you uncomfortable.

I can accept your position, as right 
> for you, but there are inconsistencies in some of the things you 
say 
> that make me wonder why you take this position. Perhaps I have 
> no right to ask such questions, and I will cease, if that is what 
you prefer.
> 
There are questions, and then there are questions. Questions that 
are consistently accusing in tone get old, and yes, I'd prefer you 
cease that mode of interrogation. Or accusatory implications:

> 
> But when we bypass the 
> message in order to analyse the messenger, we are in danger of 
> missing the point.

Who is doing that? I was a devoted Theosophist for many years before 
getting into these historical questions. I read the entire Collected 
Writings, spoke at dozens of meetings, attended conferences, and it 
never occurred to anyone to suggest that I was "bypassing the 
message." After 17 years of assiduously studying the message, I 
published some research on how it was shaped by circumstances in 
HPB's life. No bypass involved! 

Perhaps the problem here is that you do not 
> accept the validity of the Masters who guided HPB through her 
> work? 
> >

Perhaps the problem here is that you keep trying to find ways to tell 
me that I'm on the opposite side of some spiritual divide that you 
keep defining in different ways, but always with you on the right 
side and me on the wrong? "Accept the validity of the Masters" is 
something we could go around and around about, parsing meanings. But 
why don't we cut to the chase and say it's not a question of 
accepting the validity of any person (what is a valid person anyhow) 
but rather the validity of certain *narratives*. 
> > 
snip
> 
> Perhaps, if we regard HPB as just another historical figure. 

When we're regarding *anyone* historically, that comes with the 
territory.

To me 
> she is much more than that, but not to you. That is pretty clear by 
> now. 

It's not a question about HPB. *Anyone* when discussed historically 
is "just another historical figure." That doesn't mean that there 
aren't other valid approaches. 
> > 
I just 
> wonder what such kinds of questions are leading to? If it is an 
> attempt to trivialize the messenger, and therefor the message,

You should know by now that no one is making any such attempt. Don't 
be taken in by other people's paranoid imagination here. No one is 
trying to trivialize HPB or her message. Some people are trying to 
trivialize others' efforts at historical understanding.
I 
> must protest and will continue to do so. Too much is at stake in 
our 
> time to do otherwise, as I see it. 

So the amount that humanity has at stake spiritually leaves you no 
alternative but to protest the historical/critical inquiry some folks 
are directing towards HPB? I would suggest that this sort 
of "protest"-- which comes across as a low level of harassment-- is a 
waste of time for all concerned. Anyone truly concerned with 
humanity's needs at this time should find something more important to 
protest.

snip
> 
> Paul, it seems that we have hashed and rehashed this subject 
> pretty well. I don't mind continuing, if you wish, but I would like 
it to be clear that I represent myself, my own understanding, only, 
and that I have no intention of trying to prove that you or anyone is 
> wrong. There is room for all here.

I appreciate your saying that, and would just ask you to try to 
refrain from anything resembling "I'm more spiritual than you, and 
you ought to be more like me"-- whether addressed to an individual or 
a collectivity.

> opportunity, in lists such as this, to communicate with others whom 
> we most likely would not encounter otherwise, and surely much 
> good can come from honest and sincere discourse.
> 
I hope so,

Paul