Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00281)

Hello Bill,
Being a bit of a lefty I tend to have a strong mistrust of elitism 
and find the notion of "superior beings" and "superior races" very 
hard on the ear.
Unfortunately some of the nomenclature in theosophical writings when 
we look back at it now, can have rather unfortunate overtones.

So I tend to try and look beyond the terms at more at the principle 
involved beneath the actual term used.
If the Cosmos is a Unity in diversity then the role of more `evolved 
beings' would need to be philosophically consistent with that notion.

It seems from what I can gleam from the writings that up until 
someone actually becomes an accepted Chela we are pretty much free 
agents.
But once accepted by a Mahatma as a Chela they must `conform' to the 
rules of the Occult order that one has become a part of.
This to me would make sense due to the fact that the Mahatma's 
energies become involved directly with those of the Chela.
As someone can up until the highest levels of initiation "fall" it 
would make sense to me that being given certain Occult information 
requires a certain ethical standard before those responsibilities can 
be handled.
This to me would suggest that `higher' degrees of initiation require 
more and more focus and thus more and more responsibility.
Having power without the corresponding moral and ethical development 
would be catastrophic on a monumental scale.

I think this is why HPB advised thinking twice before rushing into 
chelaship.
In theory a high degree Chohan would I imagine by the very the fact 
that their awareness in centered in higher Mind could not by default 
consider themselves "better" than anything else in the Cosmos but 
simply fulfilling a highly responsible roll.
Not a job I'd want…… 

Regards 
Perry  


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Meredith" 
<meredith_bill@e...> wrote:
> Hi Perry. I appreciate your information below. After a weekend 
with
> Frances I have a greater respect for "planetaries" in all forms and 
a rather
> large limb on my roof as well.
> 
> The additional comments from everyone who contributed to this 
thread are
> appreciated. I read them all.
> 
> Perry, I like your comments about increasing responsibility with 
respect
> to dyhan chohans. I think I recall that somewhere in the ML's there 
is a
> statement to the effect that the dyhan chohan's responsibility is 
to watch
> over and protect without interference. Can you share any thoughts 
that
> distinguish between watching over, protecting, and interfering with?
> Especially that word "protect" has me wondering a bit.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Meredith" <meredith_bill@e...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: No reply to Bill Meredith's Excellent 
Post
> 
> 
> > Thanks Perry. This is an excellent post. I will be busy for the 
rest of
> the
> > weekend, but will try to respond after the holiday.
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 10:39 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: No reply to Bill Meredith's Excellent 
Post
> >
> >
> > > Hi Bill and all.
> > > Just a couple of thoughts and a few quotes to speculate on this
> > > subject :
> > >
> > > "Now, an entity, that is passing through the occult training in 
its
> > > successive births, gradually has less and less (in each 
incarnation)
> > > of that lower Manas until there arrives a time when its whole 
Manas,
> > > being of an entirely elevated character, is centered in the 
higher
> > > individuality, when such a person may be said to have become a
> > > MAHATMA."
> > > http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/MahatmasAndChelas.htm
> > >
> > > Regarding the Mahatma's and their "Chiefs" the way I understand
> > > what is presented is the Mahatmas belong to an Occult order.
> > > According to theosophical teachings as presented by HPB and her
> > > teachers the Cosmos is hierarchical .
> > > This hierarchy (I once heard Ken Wilber describe as a Whole-
archy)
> > > is simply different levels of cosciousness and awareness
> > > I also heard the Occult Hierarchy described as different levels 
of
> > > responsibility rather than 'superiority' in the ordinary sense.
> > > Beings serving in different roles and functions.
> > >
> > > With knowledge inevitably comes power and with Occult knowledge
> > > comes Occult power.
> > > If knowledge is misused it becomes dangerous both oneself and to
> > > others.
> > > We are told that with the light the shadow follows with equal
> > > potential.
> > > Until a certain degree of initiation is reached we can "fall" 
and
> > > instead of manifesting Cosmic Harmony, work against that 
process.
> > >
> > > My understanding is Evolution is ongoing even the Chohans are an
> > > evolving beings.
> > > As are the `highest' planetary spirits...
> > > The Secret doctrine speaks of this Solar manvantara only in 
our
> > > dimention of consciousness.
> > >
> > > My understanding is there are different degrees of Adept, Manas
> > > being the principle to be fully Self realised at our human 
stage.
> > > The Mahatmas apparently slowed down their own progress and also
> > > would be karmically accountable for the information they 
released as
> > > this information is power bestowing, it can fall either side 
good or
> > > bad.
> > >
> > > The Mahatma saying "the less such "idiots" hear of our 
teachings the
> > > better in relation to the said quote.
> > > To me was out of concern for humanity as a whole as misuse of 
the
> > > powers that could and can be developed without the necessary 
ethical
> > > development could do more harm than good.
> > > This also ties in with why HPB kept warning of the dangers
> > > of "disfigured teachings" that encourage reckless development of
> > > psychic abilities used for selfish ends only.
> > >
> > > The passage below to me is related to the reason the Mahatma's 
did
> > > not want to encourage blind following or worship of gods of any 
kind
> > > as that would be the opposite to what they were hoping would 
result
> > > from the release of this information.
> > >
> > > "Faith in the Gods and God, and other superstitions attracts
> > > millions of foreign influences, living entities and powerful 
agents
> > > around them, with which we would have to use more than ordinary
> > > exercise of power to drive them away. We do not choose to do 
so. We
> > > do not find it either necessary or profitable to lose our time
> > > waging war to the unprogressed Planetaries who delight in
> > > personating gods and sometimes well known characters who have 
lived
> > > on earth. There are Dhyan-Chohans and "Chohans of Darkness," not
> > > what they term devils but imperfect "Intelligences" who have 
never
> > > been born on this or any other earth or sphere no more than
> > > the "Dhyan Chohans" have and who will never belong to 
the "builders
> > > of the Universe," the pure Planetary Intelligences, who preside 
at
> > > every Manvantara while the Dark Chohans preside at the Pralayas.
> > > Explain this to Mr. Sinnett (I CAN'T) -- tell him to read over 
what
> > > I said to them in the few things I have explained to Mr. Hume; 
and
> > > let him remember that as all in this universe is contrast (I 
cannot
> > > translate it better) so the light of the Dhyan Chohans and their
> > > pure intelligence is contrasted by the "Ma-Mo Chohans" -- and 
their
> > > destructive intelligence. These are the gods the Hindus and
> > > Christians and Mahomed and all others of bigoted religions and 
sects
> > > worship; and so long as their influence is upon their devotees 
we
> > > would no more think of associating with or counteracting them in
> > > their work than we do the Red-Caps on earth whose evil results 
we
> > > try to palliate but whose work we have no right to meddle with 
so
> > > long as they do not cross our path. (You will not understand 
this, I
> > > suppose. But think well over it and you will. M. means here, 
that
> > > they have no right or even power to go against the natural or 
that
> > > work which is prescribed to each class of beings or existing 
things
> > > by the law of nature. The Brothers, for instance could prolong 
life
> > > but they could not destroy death, not even for themselves. They 
can
> > > to a degree palliate evil and relieve suffering; they could not
> > > destroy evil. No more can the Dhyan Chohans impede the work of 
the
> > > Mamo Chohans, for their Law is darkness, ignorance, destruction
> > > etc., as that of the former is Light, knowledge and creation. 
The
> > > Dhyan Chohans answer to Buddh, Divine Wisdom and Life in 
blissful
> > > knowledge, and the Ma-mos are the personification in nature of
> > > Shiva, Jehovah and other invented monsters with Ignorance at 
their
> > > tail).
> > >
> > > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-134.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
> > > <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > > > Bill wrote a post on July 27 which can be read at:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17530
> > > >
> > > > I thought he brought up some good issues and was hoping
> > > > that a few readers might pursue these issues
> > > > in greater detail on this forum but as far as I know,
> > > > no one even said "boo" about Bill's points.
> > > >
> > > > I call attention again to his post and the
> > > > points he made.
> > > >
> > > > Daniel
> > > > http://hpb.cc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >