|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Sep 30, 1993 04:56 PM
by Gerald Schueler
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.