Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00127)

Hallo all of you,

My views are:


The below is a fictive story, - which are revealing certain aspects of the Wisdom Tradfition.


Understanding Oneself

People are anxiuos to understand themselves. Part of the 
preparatory activity of the Wisdom Tradition 
is to make this possible, for the illustrable
obtuseness of most of us is almost universal.

Certain approaches are worth noting from this point of view,
for in this field it is quite possible, though not inevitable, that
people may learn from the behaviour of others.

The first concern of all is to realise that we must study the
wants and needs of people apporaching the Wisdom Tradition. 
Wants are not necessarily needs; even though wants may be the fuel and
stabilisers of the present condition of the apporacher.

I have here a bundle of correspondance from someone
who wanted to work with us in making af film on the life of
Blavatsky. He has experience of film-making, and suggests
that helping us in this way will be a contribution towards 
our work and also help him by working with special
materials.

We answer, informing him that, however theoretically desirable
the project, we are already working on a plan of this kind.
Moreover, and more importantly, we cannot work with 
'externalist' perceptions of things like this. In other words, films 
of the Wisdom Tradition have to be instrumental, planned for a certain effect. 
Only persons within the Wisdom Tradition can do this, and in doing so would 
not necessarily choose this film-maker. His interest in the subject is not in itself a
qualification.

Here is a selection of correspondance with a scholar, who is
very friendly, and wants our help (and to 'help us') in finding out
more, for publication, about a certain theosophical branch order. 
We answer to the effect that The People of The Secret work with calculated methods. 
This is not the time or the place, and these are not the people, to undertake
this specific activity.

A third collection of transaction concerns a lady who had
written a book about our work and seeks permission to quote
from materials which we have published, which she is using to
make certain points, so that 'we may become better known and
understood'. We reply that there are two kinds of materials about
The Wisdom Tradition: those written from an outside viewpoint, and those 
written to further the activity of The Wisdom Tradition. The latter may not appear to
be theosophical books at all, but they can be produced only by people
with a certain kind of insight. The descriptive or propagandist
book is not really a theosophical one - therefore we are not able to support
them. Indeed, we are ignorant of what they might be like. We
add that, to include materials of ours might not only be of no use
to our work; it might cause readers to imagine that the book 
represents something which we authorise.

Here, finally, is correspondance from a man of religion who
assumes that all spirituality is the same, and seeks to have us
ameliorate our 'harsh attitudes' towards various beliefs and
activities in the religious sphere.

Now all these approaches have certain things in common,
which (though perhaps visible to a completely outside observer)
are unperceived by the writers.

The first evident characteristic is that the person has assumed
that he or she is doing something useful, without knowing
whether this is true or not. Secondly, it is also inherent in this
assumption that we are working as randomly and on an equally
shallow basis: that, in fact, we have no long-range insight.
Thirdly, the assumpition is here that the particular aspect, item,
and so on, is useful; fourthly, that we are not already working on 
a plan; fifthly, that there is no other plan in which this person
might take part; sixthly, that one can start in the middle. That is
to say, that this individual can adopt an idea and that it is sure to
be good, without any of the absolutely essential learning which
alone can qualify someone for meshing into such programmes.

In short, the question which should have been asked is: 'Can I
learn? What, if anything, can I do?'

All The People of the Secret teach this first. It is hard to do so, 
because this bald statement ('you need to do something else first') 
is very often taken, by the Commanding Self as a rejection or as a challenge,
instead of it being thaken for what it really is, a constructive and
well-meant description of the other person's current position
and needs.

This is what lies behind the concepts of the term Taubat (repentance,
turning back from ignorant assumption in these cases) and
Khidmat, (service, which means to serve oneself best by not
trying irrelevant things, just as much as being in the service of
Truth).



So we ask: 'Can I or You learn? What, if anything, can I or You do?'




from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...and his hair standing on end... Bhagavad-Gita XI, 13-14




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]