Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00310)

>Dear Brenda--
>
>In the middle of a post addressed to other issues, you said
>you'd like for me to make a statement on the record, and also
>said specifically what you'd like me to say. When reading it,
>I thought, "OK, I can agree with that." But somehow I lost
>your post and can't recall what conciliatory message was
>requested.
>
>Could you refresh my memory?
>
>Fraternally,
>
>Paul
>
>PS-- No need for more feedback on my upcoming talk, but I did
>think it a pleasanter brief diversion for theos-l than the
>discussion that next took center stage.

Paul, here it is. I really didn't have a single thought to share regarding
your talk other than being glad you were preparing for this and also that
you were able to discuss this with Arthur and offer us the opportunity. I
enjoyed the discussion but felt a lot of my energy directed toward you in
that situation. Because Rich Taylor introduced himself and brought out a
number of different issues, I needed to feel that the energy directed toward
you would not suddenly stop or be diverted or in any way. So I devised an
answer right in the middle of Rich that would allow my thoughts of
assistance to you and what you are preparing for a more normal conclusion.
What you find to speak about I'm sure will be fascinating without anything I
have to add.

Here is the insert in the message called Rick's new acquaintances:

(Paul)
Various Theosophists have been working toward this idea for
years; Stephan Hoeller and others have written on the
theme. I'd say, on the issue of "possibilities," that there
are two sides at least. First, seeing the existence of Masters
as a possibility because of the overall pattern we see in the
universe (evolution of consciousness). Second, seeing the
particular stories about the Masters as symbolic of human
possibilities.

Paul, I'd like to think that the Masters brought Rick to us, because much of
the direction on the list seemed to be geared toward helping you present at
your upcoming engagement. While this may be noble work, do we each have
work to do for them at a different level? I know that identifying the
Masters as human has an unsurpassed appeal to you, but while their
activities CAN be identified by someone as sharp as you and shared with us
all, and their words are there for people like Liesel to ponder and repeat,
some people look to their "thoughts." Entering the stream of their thoughts
and consciousness, staying in harmony with them, the plan, etc., these are
some of the meditations which theosophists might try.
>
> Undoubtedly the historians would be inclined to this perspective.
>Yet even the most historically-oriented of Theosophists have
>been heretofore disinclined to approach the Masters in this way.

A historian has a different identity of theosophy than a "man of the world"
might have or even than that had by "those who are trying to live a
spiritual life and aid in their great work."

(Arthur)
> Those who are concerned with human values and caring would consider the
> Masters as emblematic of the relational accompaniment. We are not alone, we
> are guided by Wisdom figures and we can establish a relationship to them.
>
(Paul)
> Those interested in mentoring or spiritual guiding might be oriented this way.
>And those who are attracted to Theosophy as a universal
>solvent, reconciling diverse traditions. The ideal of a single
>category of persons who are responsible for all great spiritual
>movements somehow gives people a feeling of connection and
>affirmation.

What about those who are alienated by religion or society? Aren't the
Masters themselves alienated?

(Arthur)
> It depends whether the senser is introverted or extroverted. The introvert
> would strive to establish as physical sense of inward peace that is derived
> from contemplation of the image of the master whereas the extravert would
> go in for the more spiritualistic phenomenon associated with spiritual
> power in the world.

(Paul)
>OK. But might not the e/i preference affect all the other
>choices, too? For example my thinking is extroverted, so I am
>more interested in collecting facts than analyzing them.

If we could be Masters, would we sit in meditation and solve problems in the
world? Would we gather around us hosts of angels and forces waiting to do
our bidding? HPB had quite a bit of control over the elemental kingdoms it
would seem. Once we accept the existence of powers, how can we use them to
attract others to the "path?" In THE YOGA SUTRAS OF PATANJALI powers are
presented as a very natural outcome of meditation. With Leadbeater as an
example, couldn't we suppose that we, too, will find this of particular
fascination as a discussion point in attracting others to "living the life."
There is so much of the world that doesn't know or is unconcerned with
mankind's future as powerful beings, because it isn't relevant for today.
If we align ourselves with the path of occultism and then begin to notice
powers within our nature similar to those we find in other noteworthy
theosophists, will we be able to continue in society as normal human beings?
I think that knowing that the masters have been able to do so with some
secrecy of their true "thoughts" and "activities (at a thought level, but
naturally eclipsing somewhat with the physical plane)" is very beneficial
and should encourage others to keep striving in every possible way in their
own lives.

I want Paul to say you can live in society and develop yourself fully with
these great teachers as examples and to some extent Leadbeater is an
example. If I chose to discuss "psychic" activities here, does it deserve
ridicule by those who want us to live "unagreeably" inclined to accept
things without first hand knowledge? By being friends and acquaintances
with someone who reads into theosophy that 1) as once The Theosophical
Society served as an "objection" to false notions that were being spread
widely in regards to eastern teachings, so 2) we shall always serve as an
"objection" to false teachings regarding ANY esoteric teaching, are we
thereby incapable of peaceful discussion, because objection must be so
highly regarded. Even first-hand knowledge has its drawbacks because
theosophy might be "lowered" instead of "raised" by it.

Rick, is it systematizing to take an original purpose and expand it? I
would agree with Patrick if it is and say this is acceptable. Could the
above also be what Patrick describes as revelations? Could a revelation be
the discovery that a teaching is false?