Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00344)

Hi Adelasie. May I ask a few questions to try and understand you better? 
This was a rather long exchange, so I have included only the comments that
caused questions. 

----------
> From: adelasie <adelasie@surfari.net>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophy/theosophy
> Date: Thursday, January 24, 2002 2:08 PM
> 
> Dear Paul,
> 
> I'm surprised that you interpret my words as you do.
> 
> On 23 Jan 02, at 23:23, kpauljohnson wrote:
> > 
> > Hi again. I'd hoped for understanding but your response still conveys
> > moral judgment and spiritual superiority. Hope to clarify how that is
> > the case, and why this approach tends to obscure key issues.
> 
> If you read my words as indicating that I feel morally or spiritually 
> superior to you, please reconsider. 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. 
> > 

As I read this I wonder Adelasie, would you substitute another term for
superiority so easily? For instance, are you more aware of theosophy than
Paul is perhaps? It is a hard sell to offer that you and Paul differ so
significantly and yet ultimately the difference does not matter. May I ask
if you can acknowledge a future life or time in this life when you might
speak as Paul speaks about HPB and theosophy? I didn't think so.

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

Adelasie, If you believe that "concentrating on the lower personality
seems to take our attention away from the meaning of the work she did",
then why leap to defend the personality of HPB? Why protest in bold
letters and challenge the historical record of the personality called HPB?


> An example: Humanity is in a crisis in its evolution. 

On what basis do you draw this conclusion? A crisis? Is this current
crisis a new phenomenon or an extension of the original sin? 

We are on the 
> brink of a new level of vibration which will bring us closer to an age 
> of brotherhood. We can look around us and see the evidence of 
> 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, 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. 

Why must this be an either/or condition. Can we not eat the food, derive
the benefit it offers, [and be grateful ???], and use it for the good of
all, and examine the china it is served upon, comment upon the personality
of the servants themselves and avail ourselves of the opportunity to
benefit ourselves and others? 

>There is 
> no superiority or inferiority involved.

Actually the way you present it as an either/or option there is superiority
involved. This is exactly the either/or choice that is imagined by
Christianity. Humanity is lost and spiritually starved. Christ is the
only saviour. We can either accept him into our hearts and be saved or we
can be critical of christianity and go to hell.

cut the remainder


regards,
Bill