Theos-Talk Archives (October 1993 Message tl00003)

          Some Thoughts and Questions:

The word inclusive suggests "containing all things"
while the word exclusive implies preferences and
containing only selected things.  While some say that
the ineffable Beness contains all things (and therefore
its nature is inclusive), and thus contains as much
hatred as it does love, we must take care as to some of
the possible ramifications of such a view.  For
example, should theosophy contain and embrace all
things?  Should theosophy condone and openly embrace
war, crime, hatred, revenge, suffering, and so on?
Should a theosophist agree with every opinion of every
other person?  Should I transcend my human ego, and
view *your* opinions as *my* opinions?  (Is not this
what our politicans do, all too often?)  Or should
theosophists embrace love and renounce hatred?

Obviously, inclusive and exclusive are bipolar - two
sides of a duality.  As such, we cannot embrace one
without attracting the other to our side.  As human
beings we cannot, in point of fact, have love without
hatred, peace without war.  In the Taoist sense, we can
eliminate the one only at the expense of the other.  In
the non-dualistic Vedantic sense, we can (and
eventually must) transcend both.  This is to say that
both sides of any duality must be abandoned.  To end
heads, we must also get rid of tails, and thus pitch
out the whole coin.  Either that, or we must simply
recognize that every coin has two sides to it, in which
case the problem more or less will resolve itself.

Should a theosophist embrace "all that is in human
spirit and mind" or should he/she selectively embrace
only those aspects which he/she believes to be the most
nobel?  Is karma a factor to be considered, or not?  Is
karma inclusive, or is it exclusive?

If my mentality says "all things are right," then where
is my morality and what will happen to my code of
ethics?  When I say "these things are right, but these
things are wrong" I establish and define my code of
ethics.  Sure, it is transient and relative to my
culture and to my personal experiences.  But is
morality better (or worse?) than amorality?  Should
future theosophists become amoral?  Or does
inclusiveness imply tolerance rather than acceptance?

Some say that there is an occult (ie., supra-human)
organization configured in the pattern of a secret
hierarchy that reaches out from invisible realms to
help humanity as a whole and also touches and uplifts
the intuitions of individuals in their time of need.
Are not theosophists a part of that organization, de
facto?  Am I not a member in good standing simply by
virtue of the compassion in my heart?  Does not my
position within this hierarchical Lodge depend
exclusively on the amount of such compassion (and
perhaps knowledge) that I am able to generate?  Is this
organization inclusive?  Or is it exclusive, barring
those who renounce compassion and who have elected to
serve only themselves?

Every human ego has its own beliefs and opinions; we
are surrounded on all sides by our own world view.
How many of us are able to relax our ego-istic world
view sufficiently to be sincerely tolerant of the
differing and even antagonistic world views of others?
Perhaps only a few percent?  How many of those few
are able to hold a holistic view, if this means
"transcending the purely personal ego level of
existence," (which is the only level of existence that
most of us know about)?  How many folks throughout the
entire world, are able to transcend their ego and view
things from the perspective of their individuality
(equivalent to raising conscious from the mental to the
causal plane)?  And for those few, how do they then
communicate with those who still remain on the mental
plane?  Then we must ask, are these precious few
advanced people inclusive or exclusive?

We are said to be under a new impulse today.  "This
impulse "levels" things, makes distinctions go away,
and makes things equal."  This sounds like the Sethian
Current of many New Age magic schools.  The Egyptian
god Set is equivalent to the Hindu Siva (or Shiva).
He also has the distinction of being the prototype for
the Satan (Shaitan) of Christianity.  In short, he is
the Great Opposer, because he opposes the work of all
of the creative gods and goddesses.  Thus Set opposes
Horus, and so on.  He imbodies the forces of spiritual
evolution and thus opposes all material manifestation.
Horus is king on the Arc of Descent, while Set rules
the Arc of Ascent.  According to HPB, we are currently
just beginning (ie., only for the last several millions
of years) the upward Arc of Ascent of the fourth Round.
This Sethian Current is indeed important today, as we
wind our way upward along the Arc of Ascent.  It is
the current of spiritual vastness, of formless infinitude,
and is so!

... sometimes described from the human perspective as a vast
desert or endless desolation.  Of course, Set was god of
the southern desert, so all of this fits together well.
The question is, How does it fit into theosophy and the
Theosophical Movement?  Should theosophists actively assist
this current?  And if so, in what way?

I would really like to hear from members (and this
includes those who, up to now, have said little) as to
how they would answer these questions.

                            Jerry S.