Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00399)

Dear Paul,

This is a very simple and basic teaching, useful for anyone who 
desires to realize his potential as a human being. Nature is made 
up of polarities, and one of these is that which creates and that 
which destroys. Adding in the third, of the triad, the preserver, we 
can see that these forces comprise a description of all natural 
phenomena. The form is created, preserved for the duration of its 
usefulness, and then destroyed, that some other form may be built 
of its matter. Nature adheres to its laws unquestioningly, but 
humanity has the burden of choice, being endowed with intelligence 
which connects it with the greater intelligence we call God, or Atma, 
or the Absolute, or Pamabrahman, or Truth, or the Whole. Being not 
very wise yet, humanity is vulnerable to illusion and deception, from 
within and from without, and for that reason individuals sometimes 
make choices that are not in their or anyone else's real better 
interest. When we choose to behave in a positive constructive 
manner, keeping in mind and heart the principles that all the ancient 
and modern wisdom teachings provide us with as guidelines, we 
contribute to the benefit of the whole. When we choose to behave 
outside the law of our nature, which is unity, we generate 
unbalance, which karma will correct. The term, the disintegrator, 
refers to the force of destruction that such behavior allies itself 
with, as seeking to unbalance, instead of preserve balance. Noone 
is immune from making such choices in their daily lives. We are all 
capable of choosing for unity, brotherhood, compassion, love, 
altruism, and we are all tempted every day to choose in favor of the 
lower selfish self. Each individual has the right to decide for himself 
which choice he is making, and no other has the right to judge him. 

I agree that our previous discussion has reached the end of its 
usefulness. 

Adelasie

On 26 Jan 02, at 17:29, kpauljohnson wrote:

> Dear Adelasie,
> 
> I guess this should be our last exchange on this subject, since it has
> gotten to wheelspinning. I'd really be happy if you changed your
> perspective even slightly as a result of my efforts to get you to see
> an alternative POV. But if not, that's OK, this is read by others and
> perhaps they'll gain something by it.
> 
> To avoid personalities, let's just put aside the question of whether
> or not you're slamming me, or some other person in particular, in
> these remarks, and focus on whether it's helpful or useful to apply
> them to *anyone*. You wrote: > > Certainly history is interesting and
> useful, and a responsible > investigation of historical facts is a
> fine thing.
> 
> That's an encouraging statement. Why not leave it to historians to
> evaluate whose investigations are responsible, rather than judge that
> based on sectarian criteria like how much the results challenge our
> spiritual belief system?
> 
> But it is also possible 
> > to use the mantle of historical investigation to try to throw dust 
> in everyone's eyes,
> 
> I see here the pattern of leaping from *perceived implications* to
> *imputed intentions* and it leads to demonization of others and
> degradation of discourse. That is, "X's historical investigations
> have the effect of making people feel as if dust has been thrown into
> their eyes, therefore that was X's intention."
> 
> to obscure the actual essential meaning of the 
> > thing so investigated. 
> 
> In all sincerity I doubt that any historian, professional or amateur,
> has *ever* had any such intention. But I bet hundreds or thousands
> have been so accused.
> 
> In the case of theosophy and HPB, 
> > opposition has tried to do this since the beginning. 
> 
> This is where things get very dicey. If you look at any new 
> historical inquiry as possibly a tool of "opposition that has tried to
> do this since the beginning," you're (impersonal you) going to be
> paranoid in your attitude toward historical scholarship. Particularly
> when you start applying this suspicion to people who have absolutely
> no interest or desire in harming anyone.
> 
> There is a force 
> > called the disintegrator which attempts to keep these teachings and
> > all ancient wisdom from being spread among humanity, 
> 
> What is the source for this? Sounds like a Theosophical version of
> the devil. And to interpret others as instruments of this evil force,
> trying to prevent the spread of teachings, is no better than
> fundamentalist Christians seeing scholars of early Christian history
> as instruments of the devil trying to undermine the gospel. On one
> hand, you seem to be saying that you don't want to be enemies with me
> or anyone else with whom you disagree on HPB; then on the other you
> turn around and implicitly accuse us all of Satanic inspiration. Can
> you really have it both ways?
> 
> > seeks to retard that evolution. Whenever we see betrayal, 
> > treachery, self-aggrandizement, unkindness, attacks on 
> > personalities, cynicism, paranoia, trickery, or any of the well-
> known qualities of lower self-seeking ambition, we have reason to
> assume that the disintegrator is at work.
> 
> Is it possible that this disintegrator, if it exists, might be 
> working *from within* to undermine spiritual movements? That some of
> their own leaders and prominent members might exhibit all the above
> traits? Could you possibly see this force as an equal opportunity
> opposition, ruining a movement by hardening the hearts and narrowing
> the minds of some of its adherents? Or is it only them outsiders and
> never us insiders?
> 
> Remember that HPB's strongest warning about a destructive force in the
> future of the movement said nothing at all about external opposition
> or excessive historical skepticism! She focused *entirely* on the
> dangers of dogmatism from true believers, not criticism from skeptics:
> 
> Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in
> failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set
> up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible
> degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart...If, then,
> they [future Theosophists] cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or
> at least taught to recognize it instantly and so avoid being led away
> by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off onto
> some sandbank or other, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder
> and die. (Key to Theosophy, p. 305.)
> 
> Each student has to discover such 
> > agendas on his own, but we need not submit to the machinations of
> > this force which seeks to confuse and destroy. 
> 
> Could you consider the possibility that confusion and destruction are
> dangers that come to the movement from within, more than from without?
> From excessive faith, rather than excessive doubt? From those who
> intend to protect Theosophy from the devil, but in fact become
> instruments of the very forces that HPB most warned us about?
> 
> Perhaps we can discuss other things here, but this will be my last
> word in response to your steady drumbeat of spiritual accusations
> against historical inquiry.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
>