Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00609)

>JRC:
>It is hard for me to read your latest round of posts, because I
>have been told a number of times by encouraging members of this
>board to watch my tone. I don't see others making similar
>efforts:
 I haven't said a word about your style of communication, and
this is the second time you have seen fit to critique mine. I
invite you to delete my posts if you wish.
 But actually I got a good belly laugh out of your post.
You, of all people are going to shake your finger at me about
*tone*? Didn't one of your first posts contain the memorable
sentiment `doesn't ANYBODY on this list understand the difference
between the PSYCHIC and the NOETIC?' - this to a list containing
people that have been studying, meditating upon and working for
Theosophy for more years than you've been alive.

>Perhaps you aren't familiar with William Q. Judge. He was a
>founder of the T.S., and the principal Messenger of the Masters
>in America for many years.
 "Principle Messenger" is questionable, and in fact has been
vehemently debated for years. He may have been one of the main
proponents of Theosophy ... but I'm not even sure if Theosophy
was the principle vehicle for the interaction between the Masters
and America - sure doesn't seem to be today. The Masters (IMO)
seem to be interested in large scale service to humanity as a
whole, and attempting to create movements that cause the
elevation of whole populations ... not in tiny little cults whose
inclusivity and range of resonance is so narrow that the barest
fraction of one percent of the population even finds it vaugely
relevant.

>He was not a casual student, nor a little dabbler in occultism
>and the astral, but spent 13 years earning chelaship, and went
>on to become the single greatest force for Theosophy in America.
 According to the *article*, he dabbled for just a little bit
with the "astral", and then decided to leave it alone.
 "Single greatest force for Theosophy in America" is most
*definately* questionable.

>You need not like him or respect him, you may point out his
>"errors" and consider that he was unconcious of his motives,
>etc. But it may help to be aware that your dismissive tone
>makes you difficult to read, and your emotional sniping at a
>student of the Masters makes you difficult to take seriously.
 Then please, do not take me seriously. I have been subject
to "dismissive tones" from Theosophical "leaders" for years, been
subject to traditionalists running things and talking down to
anyone who sees things other than the way they do. Of all those
on the list, your tone most closely resembles that of Daniel in
the Lion's Den - an almost constant attitude that you know what
Theosophy *really* is, and everyone else either agrees with you
or is still waiting to see the light. The tone of my post about
WQJ pales in comparison to your comments about CWL, for
instance -
 You posted the WQJ article, apparently not just arbitrarily
but as a statement meant to support a position you hold - and
that you apparently believe is the *real and only correct*
position to hold on the use of abilities. I had never read that
particular WQJ article, and in it found a half-dozen major
reasons why he had a bad experience, and also saw that he was
willing to universalize that bad experience into a general
warning to stay away from such things altogether. And the very
stature you represent him as having means that his generalization
could do damage to people to whom his experiences do *not* apply.
 You seemed to be using his article for a purpose of your
own, and now you presume to castigate me for not holding what you
have determined to be the appropriate amount of respect.
 I would prefer people made their own arguements. I have no
desire to enter into a sort of quoting match in which we all go
to "source" documents to make our points - as Theosophy contains
even more source literature than Christianity - and we could all
endlessly quote sources to back up our own positions ... but they
are, finally, nothing but our own positions.

>He trained with the Masters and is teaching "source Theosophy."
>If you are so upset about what he says, it may be worthwile to
>consider what kind of Theosophy you are a student of?
 I'm not upset about what he says, in fact I must admit I was
chukling while writing the response ... but you seem to be
upset that people are not simply bowing to your own point of
view. Your definition of "source Theosophy" is nothing other than
.. your definition. It has no authority in my world.
 And, by the way, you have a charming rhetorical style - in
the middle a letter critisizing me for my "dismissive" tone,
you actually manage to take a thoroughly demeaning shot. Why
don't *you* tell me then, what kind of Theosophist *am* I? A
*lesser* one than you? A *lower* one perhaps? Because I don't
measure up to *your* standards of what Theosophy is? *I* never
questioned the spiritual stature of WQJ, only the correctness of
his ideas and the (IMO) substantial flaws in his methods of
approach to the opening of inner senses. Nor have I questioned
your stature - though I have a distinctly different view of
Theosophy than you do.
 You, however, in a letter complaining about my tone, adopt a
tone of almost utter condescension because I don't measure up to
your standard of what real Theosophy is. I gave me a good giggle
(I've been judged by so many people that the last thing I am
concerned with is your evaluation of my own "kind" of Theosophy).
But suggesting that because I'm not on my knees in front of WQJ I
ought question what kind of Theosophy I am a student of - you
have gone well over a line I've never seen *anyone* on this list
cross: with all our battling, our vehemently held and vastly
differing opinions and approaches, I have never seen one of us
question the *Theosophy* of another.
 We battle often over our *ideas* about Theosophy - as I have
been involved in a substantial discussion with Eldon recently -
but the thought of ever even implying that because Eldon does not
and will never agree with my approach he should therefore
question whether his "kind" of Theosophy itself is valid, or is
even Theosophy ... well such a thing would be unthinkable to
myself or anyone else on this list. In fact my personal esteem
for Eldon has risen enormously throughout the last discourse,
precisely *because* his foundations are so different from mine,
precisely *because* he argues his points so strongly and so
well - and from the very core of his own thoughts rather than
through the intermediary of quotations. I will never adopt his
perspective (though I have learned from the discussion ... and
perhaps he has as well) but I would never, because of our
differences, question whether he was a Theosophist, or whether
what he was doing was Theosophy - and in fact would never so with
you either.
 That you would do this, in post in which you are not
answering my critisisms of the WQJ article, but my tone, is
extraordinary and even a little bizarre.

>I would merely throw in my own comment, that blinded by ONE
>aspect of the teaching (be it globes or psychic development or
>whatever) we may miss the greater picture, and end up drawing a
>caricature of those who came to teach us.
 Believe it or not, I am perhaps every bit as well read as
you are, meditate with as much discipline and perseverance, and
pursue the activation of far more than what you dismiss as
"psychic" senses. In the current argument, I am emphasizing *one*
aspect of Theosophy that I believe has a valid place in the
totality of Theosophy, and has been systematically and
institutionally suppressed, and has come to be spoken of in quite
a condescending way by people uncomfortable with it. I have
*never* argued that a study of the writings, "source" or
otherwise, shouldn't be pursued; never held that meditation,
moral development, the continual aspiration to widen and deepen
one's service, and the attempt to bring intuitive faculties into
full-blown operation are not all valid and necessary aspects of
the Theosophical path - but I am not arguing those things here
.. only that *in addition* something can be added that was a
significant part of early Theosophical activity, and that is now
being almost completely ignored.
 Nor did I "miss" the bigger picture of who WQJ is. I have
read a good deal of him, and the article you posted is, IMO, one
of the weaker things I've seen. *You* posted an article by him as
part of *your* argument ... and I answered the article as my
response to *you*. I was not commenting on the entire body of
WQJ's writings in a discussion of WQJ, but on a specific article
in a discussion of inner abilities.

>Mr. Judge did not "force" his psychic development, he was
>following a program of development of the Mahatmas (according to
>his statements-- perhaps he lied or was deluded). Under that
>program, apparently, one is left alone most of the time to find
>one's own way.
 Simply because WQJ was a pupil by no means indicates he was
free of mistakes. It is my own personal belief that souls
incarnate with something like a specific set of parameters within
which their growth and development may best occur - and that
these parameters are very specific to the individual. I believe,
because of observation and discussions with a good number of
people over the years, that a whole host of inner abilities lie
latent in the human constitution, and that these are selectively
either suppressed or activiated according to the parameters
chosen for that particular life. I believe it's probably not that
good of an idea to attempt to artificially activate (as "occult"
techniques can do) such things, because to do such is to use the
conscious mind to override choices made by the higher aspects of
being (a mistake his Masters allowed WQJ to make - and the
resulting experience WQJ describes is *remarkably* similar to
that of a number of people I've talked to who have tried the same
thing). I also, however, think it equally in error, equally an
attempt to override the soul's "programming", to ignore, degrade,
or refuse to acknowledge and develop abilities that arise
naturally as part of the soul's intent for a specific life.
 The problem I've been having is with people, and the TS as
whole, voicing an attitude that believes there can be a "general
rule" about inner abilities - and that the "general rule" is to
avoid. It is *not* (IMO) an issue about which there can *be* a
"general" rule. As wrong as it is for an individual to override
the foundational parameters for the life set by the higher self -
either in the direction of suppression or artificial activation -
doubly arrogant and wrong it is for an "spiritual" movement to
institutionalize a general rule about it.
 WQJ was *not* born with active abilities. He clearly tried
to force them, was permitted by the Masters to make this mistake,
and to form his own conclusions about it. HPB, on the other hand,
seems to have been born with a good number of inner abilities,
that she also, with the permission of the Masters, developed -
and her experience is quite different ... they became abilities
she used throughout her life and in the service of her cause. Who
are *you*, or for that matter *any* currently living Theosophist,
to determine what is appropriate in the path of another?
 It seems that a certain (and possibly growing) percentage of
the population of every generation will be born with some ability
or set of abilities. I have never said Theosophy should try to
teach people to force open what does not naturally occur - but
because among the majority of its founders existed both a
theoretical construct and a substantial amount of exercise of
abilities, I do think the exercise and development of such things
in those in which they *do* naturally occur *does* have a place
in Theosophy, and that to open to this would not only allow
Theosophy to serve an additional group of people, but would also
both contribute much to the movement and widen its potential
service.

>It is also easier to understand, given the current climate on
>this board, why Mr. Judge was so viciously and mercilessly
>attacked by many second-generation Theosophists during his life,
>because he stuck to HPB's lines, which the others WOULD NOT.
 Welcome to the list! So one of your favorites appears to
have been attacked. Perhaps you now have a hint of the pain felt
by others when you (as you most assuredly have) seem to speak in
vicious and merciless tones about *their* favorites.
 I gotta tell ya, I'm pleased you're on the list - as I do
love the intense diversity of perspective here - and it gives me
great pleasure to travel a wee bit of my path with others whose
intensity and committment to their path is as strong as mine (a
thing ultimately far more significant to me than *any* current
ideas or abilities held by someone ... as ideas will change
multiple times in the travelling, but the intensity of
committment is the constant that perseveres through lifetimes -
and is why I'm even pleased to see Daniel here ... his ideas are
appalling to be, but by gum the boy sure has the Fire). I must
say, however, that you'll prob'ly be wasting your time if you
continue to try to sit in judgement about how I choose to express
myself. I do not at all like what seems to me to be the high-
handed self-righteous attitude that is present in virtually all
of your posts ... but I also haven't made an issue of it because
you have every freedom to speak in whatever way you wish.
Neither, however, am I in the least bit concerned with your
evaluations of me.
 -JRC

.