Theos-Talk Archives (August 1994 Message tl00114)

Daniel Hampson has some interesting comments that need
a reply.

> I can imagine Greater Shame ...  to pretend that one has
> gazed on the Truly Grand

When any of us start to speak of the theosophical teachings,
we quickly come to things that are not provable, and
often nearly-impossible to express in words.

Some theosophical groups like the ULT limit study and
inquire to quoting from selected theosophical texts, and
you are not even permitted to give you name as a lecturer,
but rather say "this student." Articles are not allowed to
be signed. This is in the name of "impersonality," but
really allow a lot of personality to creep into theosophical
expressions, since the person is unknown and you cannot
factor out his or her temperament.

> and eloquently expressed the Lie

Do we breath air? If someone holds their breath, is it a
big lie to talk about full lungs and fresh air? The matter
of personal experience of the spiritual depends upon how
readily accessible it is to everyone. A belief that it
is far-removed from life will lead to considering a
first-person discussion of the spiritual in relation to
Theosophy as grand-standing.  But is this form of expression
boasting? You need to see who signed the article and then
use what you know of that person to decide.

> for the purposes of exalting oneself

If one is operating from that sort of motivation, then
one is not really in touch with Theosophy as a religious
philosophy, but rather just playing intellectual games.

> and misleading others.

Since much of Theosophy goes beyond what can be easily
communicated with the written word, it's hard not to
mislead, regardless of what one writes. The only way to
remain safe is not to think about it, not to have an
original idea, but simply to find authoritative quotes
to talk about any particular subject. But to parrot the
words of another without understanding them can mislead
as well.

> Those of us out here lurking in the darkness are drawn
> to the Light.

The darkness is self-imposed. The light is not something
so vast, so far-removed from life that only one in ten
million can embrace it. The biggest barrier is disbelief
in its living presence, in its accessibility.

> But some of the Brighter Beings we encounter possess
> Light without Warmth. They take our time, twist
> our thoughts, steal our children, breed with our mates.
> And our Hearts are frozen.

Our Hearts are neither warmed nor frozen because someone
else "did it to me." We open our Hearts to external
influences, and have made them what they are today. We
are self-responsible, and all is the result of past or
present karma. There are no bogey men bringing darkness
and evil into our lives that we did not invite into our
lives.

> We know that Beautiful Truth has a few Ugly Sisters and
> Brothers. We weren't really looking for them and now that
> we're bumping into them in the dark, we're not sure how
> intimate we should become before the Dawn.

If this is in reference to the vast spectrum of discussion
in "theos-l", then it's true. There's a vast range of
ideas, some Theosophical, some quasi-theosophical, and
some just idle speculation. We each have to sift through
it all and pick out whatever we find of value in it.

> Somebody light another Candle, please. Talk Crazy.
> Reveal your Mystery.  Give me some Heat.

The best way to engender further discussion along a
certain line is to write something in that vein yourself.
The type, nature, and quality of our communications will
both elicit responses in kind, as well as a certain
degree of static from those it does not sit well with.