Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00332)

Liesel-

Couldn't agree with you more. While Daniel prob'ly appears
to most here to be the spiritual equivilent of a child (albiet a
somewhat nasty, arrogant one), it occurs to me that this is a
judgement that is quite relative to one's state of development -
in fact, I wonder whether to the eyes of *our* "elder brothers"
our arguing, understandings and interpretations of their philosophy
don't seem every bit as narrow and judgemental from their
perspective as Daniel does from ours. In fact, throughout the
Mahatma Letters there are subtle hints of the almost superhuman
patience it took to deal with western humans - especially some
of those who really *did* believe they had a complete grasp of
what the Masters "wanted". Thank the stars their patience was
as long as their wisdom is deep.

Even better, it occured to me today that it may not be
altogether a coincidence that Daniel would appear right around
the time when this list seems to be greatly intensifying its
activity - almost really coming to life - and that further, one
of the dominant threads concerned discussions about what "core"
teachings are, about what ought to be properly considered Theosophy
and what ought to be *excluded* ... Daniel really does, to me,
appear to be an almost classic shadow figure, and as the reactions
to Theosophy's light vary widely, so too do reactions to its shadow,
spanning the range between attempting to approach him as though
he was a complete equal to wanting him to disappear altogether
(neither of which, (IMO), are adequate approaches).

My own original reaction was to regard him as a wonderful
bit of comic relief, then over time he started to get kinda dull
and tedious and more than a little mean, and I was about to agree
that maybe it was time to just shove him out the cyberdoor .... but
it suddenly occured to me what a marvelous gift this fellow is:

He has forced the list beyond the very comfortable realm
of abstract intellectual and spiritual discussion and posed a
question of a far more difficult nature - how does our exalted
philosophy reify into *attitudes and behaviour* when confronted by
a person and a set of beliefs that appear to be far narrower (and
incapable of expansion) than we consider ourselves and our beliefs
to be? Must this very dilemma not be solved by the Masters every
time they wish to attempt to deal with humans? Has not Daniel (as
those who carry shadows tend to do) not been remarkably successful
at ... exposing us to ourselves?

Even further (while I'm on this inspired (tee hee) line of
thought) - were I to envision the Masters, sitting in the Himalayas,
listening to the many voices of our race, and desirous of keeping
the spiritual currents that manifest to our eyes as the world's great
religions clean and uplifting ... might it not appear that the huge
rise in fundamentalisms across the world was a profound and disturbing
problem for our race - as a sort of acid eating away at and degrading
some of the most beautiful religious sentiments we are fortunate to
possess (and that, perhaps, some of *them* labored to inspire)? And
just perhaps (though I do *not* claim to speak for the Masters)
because their perspective and compassion *does* embrace *all* of
humanity - to effectively work, *they* cannot banish those who are
uncomfortable from *their* planetary "listserv" - they must (in my
perhaps fanciful and deluded view of them) attempt to *solve* the
problem.

So, were you in their place, looking at the great damage
fundamentalisms were doing to the world's religions, and attempting
to solve this problem (*without* being able to in any way step on
the free will of humans) ... how might you do this? Might you not
cast your vision across the globe towards those many individuals and
groups that claim to wish to serve you, that have been enriched by
the gifts you've offered, and might you not *delibrately* place them
in contact with some of these fundamentalisms ... thereby to perhaps
discover the models by which those densities called fundamentalisms
might be expanded ... and hence dissipated? Postulating this, what
does our list have?

A classic fundamentalist taking his shots, a world of the
wisdom of the Masters to draw from, and even, at the very beginning of
the process, a most remarkable and inspired post from one of our
members that (looked at from the right angle) is nothing less than
a *precise* inner roadmap of the path that must be travelled to
expand a fundamentalism into a beautifully compassionate viewpoint.

It might be far more comfortable to simply boot the fellow
and return to the world of the study of esoteric writings - but
the huge rise in intense fundamentalisms is (IMO) a *serious* and
growing spiritual problem in human civilization (perhaps as dangerous
at the end of *this* century as the Masters saw the rise of rational,
materialistic thought to be at the end of the last) and I
cannot help but feel that trying to get rid of Daniel (whether though
technological banishment or total avoidance) would be a decision to
decline an opportunity for each of us to do some serious self-
examination, and even further, an opportunity to serve humanity in
a way that it *needs*. Fundamentalism won't (IMO) just go away, it
is not a mood, but a *problem*, a profound spiritual problem, that
must be solved - and very few people seem up to the task of seeking
to discover those solutions.
 -JRC