Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00418)

Thanks Terrie. You have a wise friend. The alfa-male gorilla-type 
often activates my fight/flight mechanisms. It is something I need 
to work on.

regards,
Bill


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "thalprin <thalprin@y...>" 
<thalprin@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have been sharing/discussing some of these most recent posts with 
a 
> friend of mine who wrote this lovely letter that I think does very 
> well explore/discuss some of the issues relative to these goings-
ons 
> we have recently seen on this theosophy list. I think it is good 
> contemplation and well worth sharing:    
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing that series of posts from the Theos list. The 
> antics of the (comically-misnamed) alpha male gorilla stomping 
about 
> there, looking desperately for the whip hand, urinating in the 
> corners of the room in the hope that the stench will establish his 
> territory and drive off his rivals, are revealing of the goals and 
> tactics of the forces of darkness and, as such, are fully worthy of 
> deeper consideration and analysis.
> 
> --------------------
> 
> A. Self-Infantilization. It is natural for babies to place 
themselves 
> at the center of their personal universe. They experience need and 
so 
> they reach out, fully expecting Mommy and/or Daddy to respond and 
> give them what they need or want. The only active presence in 
baby's 
> world is him/herself: as far as baby can tell, everyone else acts 
in 
> reaction to baby and baby's needs. When reaction doesn't come 
quickly 
> enough, baby screams and cries, (initially) certain that any 
failure 
> to respond is an oversight that will be promptly corrected once 
> noticed.
> 
> It is equally natural for this egocentrism to follow us into 
> adulthood by way of the world of dream. In the world of dream, as 
in 
> physical infancy, each of us stands at the center of the universe, 
> the only active and independent participant in a world full of 
> shadows, all of which play only the roles we assign to them. The 
> symbols we construct in this world need only be meaningful to us; 
the 
> characters all do our bidding (in "good" dreams, anyway); and we 
are 
> masters of all we survey. There is nothing inherently wrong with 
this 
> state of consciousness: every human being visits this "dream"/realm 
> on a daily basis none-the-less we need to be able to function in 
the 
> waking ("real"/material) world.
> 
> But when an adult attempts to maintain this infant/dream 
perspective 
> in the material world, it inevitably leads to physical and 
emotional 
> pain. That bus coming down the street is "real" enough to hit us 
and 
> put us in a hospital; that best friend or lover is "real" enough – 
> and independent enough – to reject us or attack us, causing 
> concomitant emotional suffering. 
> 
> --------------------
> 
> B. Light and Darkness. As we mature, we discover that there are (at 
> least) two very different ways in which to deal with a "real" world 
> that threatens to harm us physically and/or emotionally. The first 
> might be called the path of "morality," a path that most of the 
> world's great religions identify with striving "upward" or "toward 
> the light." We start on this path when we learn (usually the hard 
> way) that mistreating or discounting the needs of others makes it 
> vastly more likely that we will be mistreated or discounted in 
turn. 
> We experience reward and punishment for our physical actions. So, 
as 
> we mature and our understanding grows sufficiently, we strive to 
> exercise mental or spiritual control first over our physical body 
and 
> its needs. We might like to have sex with dozens of different 
> possible sexual partners, but we restrain ourselves so as to avoid 
> causing pain to ourselves and/or others which can thereby invite 
them 
> to cause us pain as well; we may feel the urge to eat until we 
> balloon, but we restrain ourselves to maintain good health and 
> prolong our lives; we may want things that belong to others and 
wish 
> to take them for ourselves, but we restrain ourselves so that we 
can 
> avoid being punished by the broader society. Thus does "morality" 
> begin, with its codes of physical conduct, as promulgated by action-
> based religions from Judaism to Zoroastrianism to Confucianism. 
When 
> we learn to subordinate the physical body to the higher bodies, we 
> recognize the process as one of "personal growth." After we learn 
to 
> subordinate the physical to the mental and/or spiritual, we 
continue 
> on the path by striving to exercise mental and/or spiritual control 
> over our emotions. We might feel upset/anger/hatred toward another 
> person, but we restrain our emotions to avoid the possibility of 
> injuring and/or being injured or killed by that person; we might 
want 
> to force everyone to pay attention to us, but we restrain ourselves 
> so that at least some people will want to pay attention to us; we 
may 
> find ourselves prey to negative feelings (frustration, irritation, 
> anger, etc.), but we restrain those feelings and strive to 
substitute 
> love, compassion, and tolerance for them. Thus does "morality" 
> continue its development, as promulgated by belief-based religions 
> like Christianity or Islam. Thus do we grow through understanding 
and 
> perhaps yes subordinating the lower bodies to the higher bodies.
>          
> "CHILD PROOF"
> There is no adequate substitute for "self" supervision.
> 
> But the path toward the light is hardly the only possible road. For 
> some people, the idea of giving up the power and egocentrism of 
> infancy and of dream is intolerable. When they have matured to the 
> point of recognizing that other people will not voluntarily place 
> them at the center of the universe, will not obey them without 
> question (in the manner of parents), will not tolerate behavior 
that 
> brings pain to others just because it beings superficial physical 
or 
> emotional pleasure to them, they embark on a very different kind of 
> journey, one which concentrates on discovering how they can use the 
> powers they develop in material life to impose their "will" 
(really, 
> their uncontrolled physical and emotional needs and desires) on 
> others, to force others to act as they are commanded. Such is the 
> path of subordinating the higher bodies to the needs and desires of 
> the lower bodies, the path of darkness. 
> 
> On this path, one searches for weapons: in the beginning, physical 
> weapons (the better to employ physical force against those who 
would 
> resist), then emotional weapons (to hypnotize or manipulate others 
by 
> playing upon negative emotions through repetition and threat), then 
> mental weapons (mastering one or more intellectual disciplines, 
> potentially enabling one to talk others into obedience – or 
> defrauding them into obedience), and finally spiritual weapons 
> (turning "magical" systems or spiritual principles to the task of 
> getting their way at any cost). This generally, has been/is the 
> traditional path of those who would be kings, dictators, generals, 
or 
> plutocrats. Those who choose it discover early on that the desire 
to 
> subordinate others to their "will" inherently involves their 
> subordination, in turn, to the "will" of others who are further 
along 
> the path. Since they would derive pleasure from the pain of others, 
> they are bound to be tormented for the entertainment and base 
> pleasure of their chosen "masters." They learn about chains of 
> command, learn to abase themselves, learn to obey without question 
or 
> hesitation, all in the expectation that their day will finally come 
> and they will also be obeyed no matter what orders they issue. As 
> they progress down this road, as they grow in the darkness, they 
gain 
> more and more power, a power that they naturally turn to the 
original 
> task of satisfying their base physical and emotional needs.
> 
> The object of the first path is ultimately utilitarian: the 
greatest 
> pleasure, happiness, comfort, and personal development for the 
> greatest number of people. The first path builds civilizations, 
> creates culture, discovers new knowledge, and looks to the stars. 
The 
> object of the second path is self-aggrandizement: vanity, greed, 
and 
> the satisfaction of the appetites. It seeks to inflict pain, and to 
> rouse others to negative actions and emotions. It is parasitic, 
> feeding on the constructive impulses of others until nothing is 
left 
> to consume. [As the I Ching puts it in the sixth line of Hexagram 
> 36: "Not light but darkness. First he climbed up to heaven, Then he 
> plunged into the depths of the earth." "Here the climax of the 
> darkening is reached. The dark power at first held so high a place 
> that it could wound all who were on the side of good and of the 
> light. But in the end it perishes of its own darkness, for evil 
must 
> itself fall at the very moment when it has wholly overcome the 
good, 
> and thus consumed the energy to which it owed its duration."]
> 
> --------------------
> 
> C. The Secret Garden. Most educated people are familiar with one 
> version or another of the kabbalistic story of the Secret Garden, 
but 
> I will offer a brief summary of it here for convenience of 
reference. 
> The Garden is described as containing flowers, herbs, and other 
> plants found nowhere else on Earth, and is said to be full of 
> extremely important secrets of magic and science, secrets that, if 
> fully comprehended, would give anyone who mastered them enormous 
> power and influence over the material world. Lured by the stories, 
> four different individuals search for and find the entrance to the 
> Garden, and enter with the intention of making its secrets their 
own. 
> The first experiments with various plants, eating a fruit here, 
> squeezing sap there. In short order, the first seeker consumes 
> something poisonous and dies. The second is fascinated by the 
> profusion and diversity of the Garden; in his/her excitement and 
> pleasure, s/he wanders ever deeper into the Garden until, coming to 
> his/her senses, s/he realizes the s/he is lost and will never be 
able 
> to find the way back out. The third is more thoughtful than the 
first 
> two: s/he experiments very cautiously with a few of the plants and 
> makes some amazing discoveries. Continuing with this cautious and 
> thoughtful mode of experimentation for quite some time, s/he 
uncovers 
> more and more powerful secrets, until s/he realizes that s/he now 
has 
> the ability to alter the very fabric of reality itself, that s/he 
may 
> be the most powerful person in the world. But when s/he leaves the 
> Garden and arrives back in the City, it is the universal consensus 
> that s/he has gone completely crazy, and so s/he is forced to spend 
> the balance of his/her life in a madhouse. The last seeker starts 
in 
> much the same way as the third, cautiously experimenting until s/he 
> has discovered a couple of amazing secrets, but upon making these 
> initial discoveries, s/he quickly leaves the Garden and returns to 
> life in the City. Years later, after s/he has integrated what was 
> learned in the first visit into his/her everyday life and mastered 
> the use of those first secrets, s/he returns a second time, makes 
one 
> or two more profound discoveries, and then returns to normal life. 
> After forty years of visits and increasing insights, the fourth 
> seeker becomes the most important religious leader in the country, 
a 
> light unto the rest of the citizenry.
> 
> On the most superficial level, the story warns of the extreme 
dangers 
> associated with investigating the occult. Most people can't handle 
> what they are likely to find out, and instead of lifting them up, 
> such study casts them down into a pit. On another level, the four 
> seekers are the four bodies of Hebrew lore: the first seeker 
> represents the physical body, which follows its appetites wherever 
> they may lead; the second represents the emotional body, which does 
> what "feels right" until it passes the point of no return; the 
third 
> represents the mental body, which can so easily become detached 
from 
> the material world and retreat into a world of its own imagining; 
and 
> the fourth represents the spirit body (which Hinduism divides into 
> four distinct bodies), which has the wisdom and good sense to 
eschew 
> the temptations of the lower bodies and thus draw nearer to the 
> light. On yet another level, the story is a parable of Light and 
> Darkness, Good and Evil, Life and Death. [Good and Evil are 
> axiomatically defined in the Old Testament in terms of Life and 
> Death: "I lay before the choice between Life and Death, between 
Good 
> and Evil: therefore, choose life, that you and your seed may 
live."] 
> Those who enter the Garden with impurity, wickedness, or a desire 
for 
> power in their hearts and souls are destroyed by what they find, 
> while those who enter the Garden in search of their higher nature 
are 
> lifted up and find more than they could ever have imagined.
> 
> --------------------
> 
> D. If the Shoe Fits… It's no wonder that the simian stalker 
squealed 
> like a stuck pig when one talked about holding up a mirror to him 
or 
> when quoted Jesus' famous injunction to "know thyself"; or when 
> mocked about his "bigger" and "better" boasts (every attractive or 
> interesting woman has heard, and is sick of, male boasts of sexual 
> prowess); or when one suggests that he "dream on." These jibes go 
the 
> heart of what's wrong with the path he has chosen to take, and 
which 
> he seeks to inflict upon others.
> 
> Many philosophers may agree that "the unexamined life is not worth 
> living," but for people like this fellow, the unexamined life is 
the 
> only life he can stand. This is a Pre-Enlightenment man: he is 
> incapable of projecting himself into other people; incapable of 
> ascribing to other people the ability to feel pain or pleasure 
(only 
> members of his "team" can be imagined to have real feelings); 
> incapable of emerging from his personal darkness and pain. [His 
> motivations are mocked in the old joke about the man trapped in a 
> pit. The trapped man wails for someone to help him until finally a 
> compassionate soul wanders by, throws him a rope, and starts trying 
> to pull the trapped man up. But instead of climbing out of the pit, 
> the trapped man tricks the person holding the rope and pulls him 
down 
> instead. The good samaritan yells at the other: "Why did you pull 
me 
> in? Now neither of us can get out!" The first man answers: "I 
wasn't 
> trying to get out. I just wanted company."] He insults everyone he 
> addresses, then pretends by turns to be unable to see that the 
clear 
> purport of his words, then to be delighted with what he's said, 
then 
> to declare such drivel "his gift" to others. [I am reminded of the 
> episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in which Buffy repeats again 
and 
> again that "death is my gift." At least the writers are trying to 
be 
> funny.] He complains that others are "nasty" to him and that he is 
> just responding to them, when he has initiated all of the ugliness 
he 
> complains about. If he looked in a mirror, how many of his multiple 
> faces and personalities would he see? Not a pretty picture. So, 
> perhaps, yes, he considers trying to show him what he looks and 
> sounds like "an act of hate," thereby standing the spiritual 
> traditions of 6,000 years on their heads, because in his dark 
> fraternity no one would even think about turning on the lights for 
> fear of what they might have to confront in themselves.
> 
> As for making fun of this younguns vanity and boastfulness, that 
too 
> cuts to the quick. Vanity and empty boastfulness maybe be what make 
> it all worthwhile for him. When baby marches into class, he expects 
> everyone to gasp in awe, to be deferential, to allow him to set the 
> agenda, to obey instructions and do what they are told. But why 
would 
> anyone listen to him? He would be laughed out of a more academic 
> setting. He has no rhetorical skills beyond "I'm better than you!" 
> and "I know what you are, now what am I?" and "No matter what you 
> say, I win." He's like the five year old who, recognizing that he's 
> losing a game of checkers to his grandpa, puts three or four more 
of 
> his pieces on the board (secure in the knowledge that grandpa will 
> let him cheat), and then proclaims his "genius" at checkers to a 
> bemused family. He hasn't even brought any of the occult knowledge 
he 
> claims to have to the table, which would lead any intelligent 
person 
> to doubt he has such knowledge, or anything else useful to offer. 
He 
> claims it's all a "secret." [I am reminded of an old friend who 
used 
> to joke "my path is so secret that even I don't know what I 
> believe."] He claims to be a "honey-maker" when he is obviously 
> nothing more than a consumer and a destroyer. He has better things 
to 
> do, but then spends all of his time trolling e-lists looking for a 
> fight and trying to pull rank. ["Luke, I am your father."] Arguing 
> with him is like arguing with Chinese Communist apparatchiks about 
> Taiwan policy: the Party's arguments don't have to make any sense 
> because the only people who take what they say seriously are people 
> with guns to their heads. All they have to do is repeat their lies 
> again and again, counting on the tendency of the emotional body to 
> learn through repetition (a principle sometimes called "the Big 
> Lie"). The man is a walking cautionary advertisement against the 
> perils of studying the occult or joining "secret" organizations: no 
> one would want to turn out like him, right?
> 
> And (in all likelyhood) he is most certainly asleep and having a 
> vivid dream in which he is the center of his universe. Everyone is 
> hanging on his words, everyone is reacting to his thoughts, 
everyone 
> is responding to his presence. [He is like the Emperor in Star 
Wars, 
> delighting in the anger and pain of others, urging them to join him 
> on the dark side.] Since he is a person who avoids self-awareness 
at 
> every turn, confronting him with this obvious truth about himself 
is 
> probably another "act of hate" in his book. But as he "dreams on," 
> he's going to need a lot more than "good luck" to avoid the fate 
that 
> awaits him.
> 
> --------------------
> 
> E. Goals and Tactics. On the evidence before us, it is likely that 
> this man isn't even the master of his own fate, but merely a puppet 
> of those further up his "chain of command." If he were some sort of 
> occult master, would he really be spending this much of his time 
> trolling internet chat groups relating to Theosophy or Gurdjieff? 
Is 
> this really the best use of a "master's" time? Self-evidently not. 
It 
> is most likely that he is simply a front man for others who are 
> engaging in a campaign of recruitment (of new members) and sabotage 
> (of groups they think compete with them for members). I would 
assume 
> that he is merely the latest wrecker in a series of wreckers, 
> dedicated to inspiring angry arguments, injured expressions of 
pride, 
> and suspicious looks at others posting to the list. He claims that 
> different people are part of his "team" as a way of casting 
> aspersions on them, trying to turn people against one another. He 
is 
> the narrow end of a wedge, and when he is finished beating people 
up, 
> (probably as a means of "softening") someone else will likely 
follow 
> behind him, sounding more rational but making a more subtle 
argument 
> for why group members should attack one another, should concentrate 
> on issues of power and who has the whip hand in preference to 
finding 
> common ground in spiritual exploration and continuing on along with 
> positive lines.
> 
> The fifth line of Hexagram 58 of the I Ching goes: "Sincerity 
toward 
> disintegrating influences is dangerous." "Dangerous elements 
approach 
> even the best of men. If a man permits himself to have anything to 
do 
> with them, their disintegrating influence acts slowly but surely, 
and 
> inevitably brings dangers in its train. But if he recognizes the 
> situation and can comprehend the danger, he knows how to protect 
> himself and remains unharmed." No doubt, it is right to avoid 
further 
> conversation with this man, conversing with him and/or putting a 
hand 
> out to him CUZ it is most likely he is not conversing with you or 
> anyone else. Most likely he has an agenda that requires that he 
talk 
> past you, and past anyone else who tries to interact with him. I 
> think if these folks are so desperate to find new recruits to 
> sodomize, maybe it's time for them to start hiring hookers and 
leave 
> the rest of us alone.
> 
> Have a BEAUTIFUL day,
> Terrie