Theos-Talk Archives (December 1993 Message tl00029)

When we read the materials authored by students of Theosohy, we may
wonder how, at times, some of us may talk or write a certain way. How
can someone write in a way that speaks of chelaship as something that
can be personally known, perhaps, even, by the writer himself?

Could some writers be chelas? Who are they to dare imply such a thing?
Should we ask them directly the question? Don't we have a right to
know, to help us properly evaluate how we should consider what they
write?

Consider, for a moment, what this question would mean.  If you were
to say that you are a chela, then there's a good change that you're
really a pretender. It may vary with circumstances, but the general
rule to to stay silent about such things. If you deny that you are,
then you are either lying about it, or are really a pretender. It
seems that there is no good way to answer this question, because it
relates to things that must not be spoken of.

If any of us were to answer this question, we would have to look at
ourselves, and make a judgement. We would be brought to think of
ourselves in terms of the personality, drawing our attention away from
the spiritual, and think in a way that may strengthen our sense of
personal self. There are things about oursevles that we can know or
sense, things about which it would be inadvisable, which it would be
premature to put into words.

Like dating someone new, where there is a growing relationship, it can
harm things to try to formulate and define the nature of the
relationship early on, rather than leaving it unnamed, formless, in
a formulative stage.

We should allow our relationship to our inner teachers to ripen and
reach term, to reach a distinct nature not as a result of the activity
of the brain-mind, Kama-Manas, but rather let it take on shape due to
the affect of our being continually active in our spiritual natures.
We should let our higher activity give it shape, form, and definition
in our lives, and not try to fashion it according to any preconceptions
fo what or how we might think that it should be.

In the early stages of this love with the Inner Beloved, we should do
nothing to sour the relationship. We should not try to fashion, shape,
control it. And to define it too neatly in our minds would do just that!

There is a difference, though, between wanting chelaship, and actually
experiencing it, in having it happen in our lives. How do we engage
the process, how do we start it, how do we let it begin in our lives?
First a belief, a strong belief, then perfect assurance, then a sound
basis in the philosohpy, an active participation in selfless work with
some degree of success, and by self-assertion or self-invocation. But
this *self*, of course, is not the personal self!

We must share all that is given us, yet remain, paradoxically, silent
about the secrets that we learn. We play life by different rules than
those based upon personal self-development. We may even be worse off
in the personality, since we have much less time and energy to devote
to self-cultivation.

We now give a helping hand to others in their climb, rather than taking
the next step ourselves. Our individual progress might be said to have
stopped after our period of probation, it may have come to a standstill
for this lifetime.

There is not any claim to superiority or greatness. The statement made,
rather, is that one's personal progress has stopped so that he may
help others. One has devoted his life to service. Our family and
friends, the people that we meet, may develop personally much farther
than we do in this life. They may learn more, experience more, live
far richer lives than we do. But we are rooted more deeply in the
heart of life itself, and have our own reward.

                         Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com)