Theos-Talk Archives (June 1994 Message tl00014)

It's interesting that you should pose that question now.  I just
finished a great book about the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels.  In
the early centuries of Christianity, there was a power struggle between
the esoteric inner church, the Gnostics, and the exoteric outer church,
the Catholics.  Within the Gnostic group there was also debate, this
debate involving the scope of the church.  The Catholics stood for a
universal church, accepting of all who would profess the creed and
follow the rules.  The Eastern division of the Gnostics held that only
the elite, the Gnostics who had had divine ecstatic experience, made up
the true church and that the rest were pretenders.  Christ's body, the
church, was purely spiritual, and thus consisted ONLY of those who had
achieved gnosis.  Theodotus, a great teacvher in the Eastern school,
defined the church as the "chosen race." The Western division under
Ptolemy and Heracleon, disagreed.  They claimed that Christ's body was
made of both spiritual and unspiritual elements, thus, both Gnostics
and non-Gnostics stood within the same church.  A quote: "Heracleon
taught that God had given them spiritual understanding for the sake of
the rest - so that they would be able to teach "the many" [alluding to
Jesus' saying that "many are called, but few are chosen" - the Gnostics
were the chosen.] and bring them to gnosis." Ptolemy agreed that Christ
combined both the non-spiritual and teh spiritual so that all may
become spiritual - spiritual leavening, if you will.

I think a similar role is appropriate for Theosophy.  I don't fault
people striving for their own spiritual enlightenment.  I vehemently
oppose elitism, however, and believe that all paths lead to the
divine.  Relative position on the road does not make a lesser or a
greater person.  I think avoiding pride is a good spiritual practice
anyway, so pride can only set Theosophists back.

Concerning your question, where does our duty lie: I don't think astral
adventures and service to humanity are mutually exclusive.  I know of
no one who has nothing to do but hang out in the astral realm all day
long. People work. Even a paper boy is serving others in his own way.
Give a buck to the homeless person.  Recognize that we are all one and
let that person get in front of you in heavy traffic.  Sure there are
people on the front lines doing service to humanity in obvious ways,
but there is also work to be done in the way we lead our lives and the
example we set for others.  I think inspiration by selfless example is
worthy work, and this work is not diminished by my being a bond trader
or a clerk or a bouncer.  I forget what category of yoga this falls
under, but the yoga of right action is one that can be lived and
performed every waking moment.  I believe this to be of value.

Of course I'm talking about the ideal scenarios here.  There are
elitists in the ranks.  We all have our bad days.  Try and live by
ahimsa (dynamic non-violence) and you'll probably come out okay.  I'm
saying that it's not an either/or question.  Theosophy has great value
to the world.  People serving humanity in everday ways have great value
to the world.  I would even call them good theosophists, although they
may not be members of the society.  Some people are pursuing their own
ends to the exlcusion of their duty to others.  That's where they are,
but that's not where everybody is.

Sorry about the long-winded answer.  A simple truth is always the most
elegant.

Take Care,

Chris Moyer