Theos-Talk Archives (February 2004 Message tt00016)

Feb 3 2004

Path of Least Resistance ?

Dear Friends:

In presenting THEOSOPHY for our consideration, Mme. Blavatsky offers a
wider view. Let me try and present what I have gleaned from its study:


Could we not say that the "Path of least resistance" is the way in which
we seek to understand the concatenation (Nidana) of certain related
events?  

Essentially, can we say, it relates to the way in we "feel" about our
life, its problems, aims, and procedures. To what extent does our
consideration extend to the needs and well-being of others -- our wide
circle of family, friends, acquaintances and others known and unknown
all around us?

Would this attitude not take us some distance out of the purely selfish
consideration? Would it cause us to wonder if we have responsible
relations with others?  

If these are worth considering, then we need to find some way of
establishing reasonable values for them. Has this been done? Is there
such a scale?  

If we look on the concept that in our Universe everything is
interrelated then this mysterious "path" is the Karma of sensitivity.
If "sensation" such as we know it relates to a state of "feeling," then
those who pursue or follow it look for ease and pleasure. But,
strangely, a small voice (perhaps it is conscience ?) intrudes and says:
'Is there more to your life than your ease and amusement ?" Can you find
a room for that which is not always "pleasant ease," and "nasty duty?"

So what is "duty?" Is it something we can volunteer in our relations
with others? Is it also perhaps something more subtle? We know that
physical life is related to sentiment and to a moral sense of
responsibility. Our minds are able to deduce how these factors operate.

If our Universe and environment offer us life-support, do we owe any
reciprocity? 

THEOSOPHY states that there is a law of reciprocity, a debt everyone
incurs because of the support they receive from nature in the way of
air, water, food, shelter, companionship. It further states that it is
in existence as manifestation and as an opportunity for evolution to
encourage everyone of us to become wiser and assist it in its incessant
work.

It further states that every being from the infinitesimal "atom" to the
utmost reach of the Galaxies is united by a life-force that serves to
unify the bond of common sentiment and cooperation. One word expresses
this: Brotherhood.

It would seem, if this is reasonable, that the more we know about
ourselves (as 7-fold beings), as "eternal Pilgrims," as deathless
ever-reincarnating Egos, as our living in a universe that runs under
laws of companionship and sharing, that we cannot indulge in
contemplating and working for an endlessness of ease.  

These are some of the thoughts that arise in considering this "path of
least resistance" concept. Perhaps there are other views?

Best wishes,


Dallas

===================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerome Wheeler [mailto:ultinla@juno.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 4:58 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] Re: theologian

If we are SUPER careful not to mix the "path of least resistance" with
the "path of expedience" then I would agree that the Masters and their
Mouthpiece, HPB, followed the line of least resistance ---provided one
looks at it from above --- but who can? So, from our everyday plane
HPB
was confronted with adversarial forces on every hand --- not the least
of
which was her own pupils!!!

If you get everyone totally upset and freaked out --- that is no proof
that you are not followed the "Path of least resistance."

Narada starts wars and puts and end to them and brings out the worst in
people sometimes ---- why, because he is progress personified, the
Master
of the Cycles.

Lightning follows the "line of least-resistance"
Reincarnation "follows the line of least resistance"

but the theological path is in error at the beginning and in error at
the
end!! because it begins and ends by critiquing a thing that has already
happened.  
Jw

====================================


On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:40:43 -0500 "Zakk Duffany"
<zakkduffany@earthlink.net> writes:
> I would like to present a perspective to the phrase of "path of 
> least
> resistance".
> To resist is to "withstand or oppose". This can be in the physical , 
> mental,
> or
> emotional areas. To substitute resistance with another word, it 
> could be
> said
> "the path of least opposition". To not resist or oppose, is to 
> accept.
> Therefore,
> to change the phrase from stated in a negative connotation to a 
> positive
> one,
> it could be stated "the path of acceptance". To continue in this 
> line of
> thinking,
> one can take a path of not resisting, take a path of accepting. The 
> next
> step of going further could pose a question, what does this entail?  
> To
> accept
> others as they are. To accept others in their appearance, their 
> thoughts,
> and
> their ways. This does not mean to agree. When one accepts others in 
> this
> manner,
> one does not get angry with others, nor dissappointed in others, nor 
> any of
> the "negative" aspects it can otherwise cause. Therefore one stays
> clearheaded,
> without the negative influences. Thoughts, emotions, and actions are 
> not
> "clouded".
> One stays on a clear path. Acceptance is not only of others, but 
> also of
> events
> and situations. When one follows the path of least resistance, one 
> follows
> the path of clarity, which brings about understanding.
> One can accept another without agreeing with another. One can 
> confront
> another while still accepting the way another is. One can try to 
> change
> things in which one does not agree with, and still be accepting with 
> the
> way things are in the present. Differences are a part of this world, 
> it is
> the way one reacts or responds to them on a personal (inner) basis 
> that
> defines whether one follows "the path of least resistance".
> It can be difficult to express some thoughts/concepts into words.

=====================================


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <stevenlevey@bellsouth.net>
> To: <study@blavatsky.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:52 PM
> Subject: [bn-study] Re: theologian
> 
> 
> > Peter, while it is obviously true that HPB
> > probably assisted in creating resistance in
> > the sectarianists and Scientists of her day,
> > none the less, that resistance was a product
> > of entrenched positions and self imposed
> > elitism on the part of those who resisted
> > her message so strongly. But, apparently
> > there is a time and a place for that from
> > the perspective of her teachers. And the time
> > and the place for "battle" was in HPB's time
> > and place. So, I am going to let her off of the
> > the hook in regards to her style.
> > In the case of the issue at hand, I was
> > adopting HPB's style in the Key to Theosophy
> > where she comes out so sensitvely about how
> > we need to not let our meager understanding
> > of karma stand in our way, when it comes to
> > helping those in need. In this sense "the
> > path of no resistance" means just simply
> > lending a hand when it is possible. To do
> > that we need to step out from under the
> > Theosophical intellectual umbrella, by which
> > we are probably protecting ourselves from the
> > world, and simply pay attention to what is
> > going on around us.
> > Steve
> > >
> > > From: "peter.m" <snowlion@btopenworld.com>
> > > Date: 2004/01/27 Tue PM 12:13:46 EST
> > > To: study@blavatsky.net
> > > Subject: [bn-study] Re: theologian
> > >
> > > H.P.B.'s perspective on this is that
> > > the presentation of Theosophy needs to be
> > > a long the lines of the path of least resistance.
> > > ===========================
> > >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > This must have been one of those "do as I say, not do as I do"
> statements of
> > > HPB's!!
> > >
> > > I liked what you suggested to L.R. I sometimes facilitate 
> workshops
> for
> > > people from different spiritual backgrounds exploring the nature 
> of
> > > spirituality, the nature of 'the journey' & so on. I tend to 
> find that
> > > when we explore what is 'meaning-full' to us, perhaps in a 
> 'sensed' or
> more
> > > 'experiential' kind of way, we discover a great deal of common 
> ground
> > > beneath the different forms of language and expression. This 
> common
> ground
> > > - or should I say, un-common ground - has a way of undermining 
> the
> notion of
> > > one person teaching another, or knowing more than others. There 
> is more
> of
> > > a sense of standing on the same soil.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >