Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00599)

Bart,

Perhaps there is some middle ground between worshipping as a perfect 
hero (an impossibility in any case, but just for the sake of 
discussion) and concentrating solely on weaknesses, even ascribing 
low motives to one who did tremendous work for humanity at the cost 
of great personal sacrifice. Why not allow that one can choose to 
concentrate on the positive, the effect of the teachings on 
humanity, the benefit we all derive from what this one person did? 

And then, why not devote some discussion to how these teachings can 
help us cope with a world that seems to be increasingly spinning out 
of control? Is Theosophy to become simply a gossip society, hashing 
over and over the same tired old debate, was she or wasn't she, did 
she or didn't she? Or can theosophists help each other find the keys 
in the teachings that will allow them to carry on the work that was 
begun over a century ago, to actually make a difference in the 
evolution of humanity? How long do we have, really, to keep on 
running around the same old squirrel cage? It hasn't gotten us very 
far in hundreds and hundreds of years. Why not allow for the 
possibility that we are at a crossroads in our evolution, that HPB 
brought to humanity some information that we desperately need. Who 
cares if she was some model of sainthood or not? Who among us has any 
right to judge anyway? Why not go to the material and see if it can 
help us? 

Adelasie

On 19 Apr 2004 at 13:34, Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> Pendragon wrote:
> > KARMA----amenable to the eternal that know no exception or
> > favoritism, and demand from us all, regardless of person, creed or
> > arrogance, to "honor father and mother, that thou mayest long upon
> > the face of the earth"? Do we not know the law of discipleship that
> > postulates that he "who does not wipe off the filth from the body of
> > a parent, shall not see the morrow fare well with him"? Are we so
> > totally blind to the fact that to us, HPB stands in the position of
> > the Master-----and thus, for the White Lodge collectively?
> 
> If we treat Blavatsky, or even the Mahatmas, as infallible and
> without 
> fault, we risk destroying everything they did.
> 
> Since World War II, the concept of the "hero" has changed, especially
> 
> in the United States. It used to be that a hero was one who had flaws,
> but was able to transcend those flaws to do great things. Somehow,
> this has been transmuted to a hero being someone without flaws. This
> attitude has the problem that, as soon as one finds flaws, then the
> person ceases to be a hero, and all the great things that he or she
> did somehow become negated by this. The result is that, in order for
> our heroes to remain heroes, we blind ourselves to their faults, and
> attack anybody who points them out.
> 
> Blavatsky was a great teacher, who introduced many important
> concepts. 
> But she was not perfect, and to treat her as such is to dishonor her
> memory more than any revelation of her faults could ever possibly
> done. Unless you think that the religion of Blavatsky worship is,
> somehow, higher than the truth.
> 
> Bart
> 
> 
> Bart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>