Theos-Talk Archives (May 1994 Message tl00060)

This is by Brenda Tucker.

Why is what human beings do or say "truth" to some?  When you tell
a story about someone behaving inappropriately, uncomely, or
immorally, how does this qualify as presenting the truth?  If it
is truth for one soul-seeker to strike out at a mistake by another
soul-searcher, then how is forgiveness lived?  And if it is truth
that highly-evolved, loving, seekers of wisdom have done hateful,
stupid, and sinful acts, then why must this become public record,
we only have to look at our own life to gain this knowledge.
Doesn't everyone have a prime example of what the life of the soul
is?  Themselves?  Why look to others to reveal to you that their
humanity is intact?  You yourself know that initiates and
probationers make mistakes because you yourself have made
mistakes.   And how does this make anyone unfit to continue the
work?  If you are so certain that there are those among us who are
disillusioned into expecting our future lives to be without
mishap, and think they must wait to qualify until they are living
a life which is pure and unstained, and that in this way we are
following in the steps of the great founders of The Theosophical
Society, then maybe it's yourself that needs disillusioning.

I think what many are attempting is to live a life in the world -
and a life of the spirit. This somehow fulfills a desire in man to
excel at all things.  Who excelled?  Did Jesus?  What about the
self-sacrifice of his own life and teaching-healing mission so
that justice could continue for mankind?

What I believe inevitably happens in the life of every initiate is
that he can no longer balance the forces of mankind and the forces
behind the existence of adept masters.  He is faced with making a
decision whether to continue a limited existence as man  or
sacrifice that existence for the good of mankind as a whole.
Could it be possible that every man who becomes adept, who steps
away from the limited ideas of men into a fuller cognition of the
cosmos as a whole, must preserve for those people who must
continue human existence a world which has been built perhaps not
to perfection but to a certain stage of evolution?  How can we be
faced with preserving a system of justice which is inadequate?
What choice do we actually have?  Hopefully by the self-sacrifice
of those who know, humanity can continue on its path, despite the
advanced stage of some of its participants, because we are only
able to rely completely on what it is the majority of us are able
to discern.  Maybe this is a stage, but who is to say it is not
for the best?

Most theosophists think of sacrifice in terms of giving up nirvana
to teach men the way.  But this sacrifice of your earth life in
order to permit justice to continue on earth for all men rather
than allow justice to become a commodity belonging only to those
who are divine and can envisage divine justice is an important
idea if we can find enough reason to permit this idea growth.

Take for example the man who supplied the video tape which exposed
the police force in Los Angeles on the illegal managing of the
Rodney King arrest.  If he had known the damages that would
results from riots, fires, and retaliatory fighting, would he have
been morally justified in supplying the tape?  Not unless he were
a 4th initiate maybe.  That may make this case minor compared to
an example of a noble, compassionate, and genuinely loving person
who really did have the foreknowledge and could advert difficulty
by losing his life.  I mean how valuable is a life compared to the
surrendering of facts to the public?  Maybe the video tape case is
only one of many such building blocks which test and prepare a man
for this bodily sacrifice and who even remembers the name of the
man who did the taping?  An insignificant person?  Maybe not.

My favorite story is from THE LIVES OF ALCYONE by Leadbeater where
he tells of Alcyone's last life as 4th degree initiate.  During
this life, which was quite ordinary in his telling of the story in
which Alcyone worked within a business-type position and was
reasonably well-thought of by his community, until the time when a
murder occurred and he was framed by a bad sort of fellow by a
torn piece of Alcyone's own shirt being found near the body of the
murder victim.  Alcyone was arrested and confined to a jail cell
until, after being found guilty, he was to be executed as was in
accordance with the law of that day.  The Master Kuthumi appeared
to him the night before he was to die and gave him a choice.
Kuthumi could save Alcyone's life.  It didn't say how.  I imagine
through the use of some magical power, he could cause his
disappearance from the cell, but it doesn't say how.  Kuthumi also
showed a visual image to Alcyone depicting the conditions of the
system of justice in that land which would result by his
release from his sentence.  These images are not described in detail
either, but the suffering and setback of this small group of
humanity was something Alcyone could not knowlingly become
responsible for and he chose to die rather than cause his fellows
to lose faith in the judicial and to receive justice even in a
worse way than was currently possible under the law.

Do you think that Jesus, too, may have elected to die rather than
to cause chaos to reign in a kingdom on earth whose ruler and
justice system had only progressed enough to satisfy the demands
of the karma of humanity at this point in time?  Many men have
fought and died for "freedom" which is a little redundant because
if their captured or they lose, they must obey their victors,
which necessitates loss of freedom.  But haven't men also fought
and died for justice.  Is this because our karma is so difficult
to overcome in relation to methods of justice and improvements in
the judicial system?  We need better methods of knowing whether
someone is telling the truth, for example.

It's true that there are flaws in the human system of justice, but
it is still the best that we have and we have to make do with it
as it is or improve it, not cause its downfall.  What I prefer to
rely on and attempt to adhere to is the divine system of justice
in life.  Divine justice versus human justice can continue its
battle within every man, because we all have to chose for
ourselves which forces are allowed to play in us.  For unlike
Jerry, I believe that those mental battles (pain resulting from
"attachment to ideas" were his words) are not won or lost but are
risen above.  (Just as mythology can exist side by side with
monotheism.  Narayan helped me understand this.  He said, "There's
only a danger at the mental level.") Beyond the mind lies a peace
which just doesn't exist on the mental plane.  Jerry says there
are ideas that deepen our understanding (Does he mean the idea
that our heros are still bad people?), but it is really our own
readiness to deepen which acts on all ideas and urges us not to
accept any idea except in relation to the work at hand. The mental
plane may well be a battleground designed to teach mankind the
nature of existence and to teach mankind to see at different
levels of understanding, but it isn't the final frontier.  We can
go beyond that state of existence to chelaship.  As found in THE
MAHATMA LETTERS, Letter No. LXVII, to Colonel Olcott:

"Intuitive as you naturally are  chelaship is yet almost a
complete puzzle for you as for my friend Sinnett and the others
they have scarcely an inkling of it yet.  Why must I even now (to
put your thoughts in the right channel) remind you of the three
cases of insanity within seven months among "lay chelas," not to
mention one's turning a thief?  Mr. Sinnett may consider himself
lucky that his lay chelaship is in "fragments" only, and that I
have so uniformly discouraged his desires for a closer
relationship as an accepted chela.  Few men know their inherent
capacities only the ordeal of crude chelaship develops them.
(Remember these words: they have a deep meaning.)

Please tell me where is the deep meaning to "Someone's been bad?"

Am I the only one who thinks of truth in terms similar to this
quote from THE IDYLL OF THE WHITE LOTUS, beginning of Chapter
Eight?:

"There are three truths which are absolute, and which cannot be
lost, but yet may remain silent for lack of speech.
     The soul of man is immortal and its future is the future of
a thing whose growth and splendour has no limit.
     The principle which gives life dwells in us and without us,
is undying and eternally beneficent, is not heard or seen, or
smelt, but is perceived by the man who desires perception.
     Each man is his own absolute lawgiver, the dispenser of
glory or gloom to himself; the decreer of his life, his reward,
his punishment.
     These truths, which are as great as is life itself are as
simple as the simplest mind of man.  Feed the hungry with them."

Doesn't the word "truth" imply a search for meaning behind a
stimulus to higher awareness and an appeal to the higher self of
man?  Isn't this why "truth" (to qualify as such) needs
universality?  Who on earth is concerned whether or not someone
named Alice Cleather felt betrayed by her fellows or not?
Betrayal happens.  Betrayal is a common thread, but not when it
relates to particular individuals who we have never known, read,
or even heard of previously (as so many people haven't.)

>From THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, p. 48, Theosophical University
Press, 1936, The Seven Portals where the keys are listed: "4.
VIRAG, indifference to pleasure and to pain, illusion conquered,
truth alone perceived.  5. VIRYA, the dauntless energy that fights
its way to the supernal TRUTH, out of the mire of lies
terrestrial."

You know, with quotes like these I don't know how we can compare
what truth is to a theosophist to something as trite as whether a
man sinned or not.

Also of interest (possibly) and because this idea has been
associated in the past with Leadbeater's teachings, is a concept
found in AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER, p. 28, TPH, 1993, Section Four
on "Love":

"See what gossip does.  It begins with evil thought and that in
itself is a crime.  For in everyone and in everything there is
good; in everyone and in everything there is evil.  Either of
these we can strengthen by thinking of it, and in this way we can
help or hinder evolution; we can do the will of the Logos, or we
can resist Him.  If you think of the evil in another, you are
doing at the same time three wicked things:
     1) You are filling your neighborhood with evil thought, and
so you are adding to the sorrow of the world.
     2) If there is in that man the evil which you think, you are
strengthening it and feeding it; and so you are making your
brother worse instead of better.  But generally the evil is not
there, and you have only fancied it; and then your wicked thought
tempts your brother to do wrong, for if he is not yet perfect you
may make him that which you have thought him.
     3) You fill your own mind with evil thoughts instead of
good; and so you hinder your own growth, and make yourself, for
those who can see, an ugly and painful object instead of a
beautiful and lovable one.
     Not content with having done all this harm to himself and to
his victim, the gossip tries with all his might to make other men
partners in his crime.  Eagerly he tells his wicked tale to them,
hoping that they will believe it; and they then join with him in
pouring evil thought upon the poor sufferer.  And this goes on day
after day, and is done not by one man but by thousands.  Do you
begin to see how base, how terrible a sin this is?  You must avoid
it altogether.  Never speak ill of any one; refuse to listen when
any one else speaks ill of another, but gently say: "Perhaps this
is not true, and even if it is, it is kinder not to speak of it.""

Why doesn't this sort of message make sense?  To me it's true and
loving and kind, but to someone else it is weak, irrelevant, and
overstated and not to be regarded as good advice, let alone truth.

Is someone so wrong to expect discussion regarding theosophy and
truth to contain truth, even if it is presented in a controversial
manner? Can you teach this subject or at least present and express
its elevating concepts?