Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00360)

Dear Paul,

It is always possible that a person will say one thing and another 
will interpret his words to mean something else. This is one of the 
weaknesses of communication on the material plane. I can 
continue to protest that I do not make value judgements of you but 
if you feel I do, what will I accomplish by protesting? Probably 
nothing. But here I go trying again.

On 24 Jan 02, at 20:41, kpauljohnson wrote:


> 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. 

Nobody is superior to anyone else. A lot depends upon our goals. 
My goals may be different from yours, but they are not necessarily 
better. Who knows enough about the bigger picture to say what is 
serving what purpose in the grand scheme of things? 

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.
> 
Among theosophists, or people who study theosophy, I assumed I would 
find a dedication to the teaching and devotion to the founders. After some 
discussion, I find this is not the uniformly the case, and I confess to some 
surprise. I wonder then what is the motivation of those who prefer to 
question and doubt, but still participate in a list such as this one. It may
be my own limitation, that I don't see the point in such pursuits. But
that's just me. I am no authority. I simply talk about what I think I know, 
like everyone else. There is no need for you to think that I judge you. 
If I did, my words would be worthless anyway, since one who judges 
others is really lost in the throes of the lower self and is not capable 
of clear thinking or right action. 
> > > 
> 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. 

According to theosophical teaching, which is my subject here, 
adhering to the principles of the ancient wisdom in thought word and 
deed is the way to actively and responsibly participate in the 
evolution of consciousness of humanity. To me that seems a valid 
goal. But if you do not accept this as valid, if you have some other 
goal or purpose in life, how can I criticize that? I may not 
understand, but I can accept your path as right for you, if not what I 
choose. I was asking you some questions in order to try to discover 
what you do see as important in life as related to theosophical 
study, and how it relates to what I understand. Perhaps I became 
too vehement. If so I apologize. I have no desire to distress you. 
> 
> > 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?

This is an interesting way of looking at doubt and skepticism. i can 
see how modern scientific methods would determine such an 
approach to theosophy, and if the investigator doesn't accept the 
mystical side of theosophy, and prefers to concentrate on the 
physical evidence, then perhaps this is the only route available. It 
seems sadly lacking in substance to me, and dangerously prone to 
misunderstanding and worse, but again, that is just me. I would be 
lying if I said otherwise, and I must represent what I understand, 
the same as you or anyone, or risk being false to myself and all I 
aspire to. 
> 
> 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?

No, not at all. Science, history, philosophy, art, all are part of 
Theosophy, as is religion. All have their place, but all need to be 
considered if one wishes to have a well-rounded view. If we 
concentrate on one and forget the others, we become unbalanced in 
some way and will have to readjust. Of course all this occurs in the 
illusion of time. We can't realistically do everything at once. But 
perhaps accepting the reality and validity of all realms of knowledge 
helps in the balanced growth of the individual consciousness. I 
mentioned concentrating on separateness when you said that you 
consider the ancient wisdom, which you call "theosophy" valid, but 
doubt the manifestation of it under HPB, and call that "Theosophy." 
I wondered why make that separation, when I see the two as one 
and the same thing. But I realize now that your way of looking at 
this question is just different from mine. Which is superior? Well, in 
all fairness I would have to say that my way of understanding is 
superior for me and yours is evidently superior for you. Which 
comes down to, they are different, but each has some role to play.
> 
> 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.

We are all gratifying our lower natures all the time. We are human, 
fallible, imperfect. I include myself in this category, unconditionally. 
This is what I personally find so valuable in theosophy, that it 
shows me a way to learn to gain control of this lower nature. If I can 
see that concentrating on personality feeds this lower nature, but 
concentrating on principle raises the vibration to something finer, 
clearer, more true, then I owe it to myself to try to focus on the 
higher, to the best of my ability. Anyone can do this, nobody is 
preventing it. To me, in my narrow way of seeing life, I wonder why 
everyone doesn't want to gain this self-control, and I hope that my 
words will shine some spark of light on someone's view, but I know 
that many do not have this goal. Theosophy can help us find it, but 
we have to do the work, and first we have to want to. If you don't 
see it this way, fine. No blame. It's not better or worse, just 
different. 
> 
> 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.

So again, we have differing points of view. Vive la diference! As 
long as we can manage respect for that which differs from us, since 
at the source it is all the same anyway.
> 
> > 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."
> 
Inferior no, materialistic, yes. That's my main question. Why limit 
our study to the materialistic data, when so much more is 
available? What is the purpose of that? But maybe it is just a 
rhetorical question, one with no answer, since there is really no 
reason why you have to explain yourself to me. We only have to 
explain ourselves to ourselves, and that is plenty to keep us busy, 
in my opinion. 
> 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.

Perhaps so. You are right. I am biased. Theosophy has made such 
a difference in my life, saved my life, really, in more ways than one, 
that I would like to make it available to everyone. I would like for 
everyone to have the experience in essence that I have had over 
the years, to discover the real substatial reliable guideposts for life 
that never let us down, and so much more. But I am realistic 
enough to know that I can't make anyone take to this study. Each 
has to do it alone, in his right time, and all I can do is send the 
words out and hope they reach someone who is ready, hope that I 
say something useful to someone, and let it go at that. Perhaps 
you feel the same about your historical research?
> 
> 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.

What you call problematic elements I see as my own limitations. I 
do not understand everything, so when I come across something I 
can't seem to see clearly, I try to hold it in abeyance until some 
further study illuminates it. So far this process has worked very 
well. But it must transcend the intellect in order to function. 
> 
(snip )
> 
> 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.
> 
Here again we seem to differ. What I understand from my study of 
theosophy is that the only effective way to be of use to humanity is 
to follow the way indicated by the teachings, the ancient wisdom, to 
make of ourselves the best examples we can, to generate positive 
and compassionate mental forms that can travel to the minds of 
others, to behave with brotherhood, altruism, foremost in our 
motivation, to be as close to our ideal as we can be. If everyone did 
this, many of humanity's most pressing problems would cease to 
exist. 
> 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.

I only try, which is all I can do. I don't consider myself an example 
for anyone, much as I desire to become such. But we have to start 
somewhere, and where we are is as good a place as any. Forget 
the "holier than thou" cant and lets just agree to disagree. 
> 
> > 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,

I know so.

Adelasie