Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00235)

At 05:00 PM 8/24/2004, you wrote:
> Hi Paul,Eldon and all
> To me the importance is how we act, not what books we read or don't read.
Our diet -- spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical -- affects how we 
function in the world. That includes the books we read and the ideas that 
we carry in our minds, which affect our perceptions and therefore our actions.

What we *do* is important. What we *are* is important. And *why* we act is 
important too. We do our best. We fine-tune our perceptions, thoughts, and 
inner states. And we learn to act from the best motivation, selflessness.

> I am a reader and have found theosophical literature of much help but
> its only one aspect of my own process.
The literature is helpful to some and useless to others. Those of us 
finding it valuable have something to share with others of like mind -- our 
books, our ideas, our interest and excitement with the process of discovery 
that it ties in with.

> Everybodies process will be differnt.
True. Some will go the same way as we do, and as walking companions on the 
same path, we can help them and share their burden. They and we are part of 
the same particular sangha or community of seekers. Others take a different 
path and delve into aspects of life that we find boring or useless. We wish 
them well on the path they have taken, knowing that if they are true to 
their inner selves, they are doing good too.

> For me being on the "spiritual path" has nothing to do with whether
> we've read theosophical books or never heard the word theosophy but
> rather the way we live and act.
The theosophical literature has to do with being on the Path for one group 
of us. For others, it has nothing to do with it. For some, the literature 
is helpful; for others, it means nothing. Those of us that value it will 
want to share it with others that take the same way as us. For anyone else, 
we wish them the best with whatever way they happen to be drawn to.

> I don't think there is such a thing as an 'inferior function'
> 'chopping wood carrying water'
The Jungian idea of an "inferior function" is just the opposite quality to 
the one that predominates in our personality. If we are thinkers, feeling 
would be called the inferior function simply because it represents the 
opposite quality. In this model, people specialize in a particular 
personality type, one of the pair thinking/feeling or intuition/sensation. 
One would have a secondary type based upon one of the other pair, so that 
someone, for instance, might be a thinking/intuitive person. Since thinking 
was the strongest quality, feeling, its opposite, would be called one's 
inferior function, since it is the other end of that pair of opposites.

-- Eldon

> Perry