Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00662)

Paul J.:

[I'm writing about Masters as Fifth Rounders]

>This "map" of human development is an interesting one, but if
>we define the Masters deductively according to such a scheme,
>it might hurt our ability to perceive them as living realities.

Agreed. It is descriptive of a certain aspect of them, like one
blind man feeling the elephant's tail. Certainly there's a lot
to the Masters that we don't understand.

>>Are things without apparent physical means untrue and not really
>>working in life, until proven?

>No, but I'd say that an unbalanced Theosophical focus on such
>unconfirmable activities of the adepts leads to a fantasy world.

You're making an important point here. There is a subtle dividing
line between working out the logical conclusions of what we know,
and of the use of intuition and a budding mental insight, and with
simply weaving an imaginative tale. It would be possible, for instance,
we we were steeped in Christianity, to using Christian imagery to
elaborate on the inner structure of the world, assigning "rulerships"
to the seven rays, and making a rigid hierarchical structure to the
inner organzation of the Mahatmas. Someone could attempt to model them
after the structure of the Catholic Church, for instance, and make
a false analogy.

>> There's the idea of Shambala.

>Pretty well understood to be mythical, no?

It would be difficult for it to exist as a physical city, somehow hidden
from both the eyes of men and from infrared sensing satellies, which have
mapped the surface of the earth, capable of detecting the heat patterns that
would identify cities.

Is it nonphysical, on another Globe, or could it be "underground" in the
sense of being scattered, hidden, not openly organized into a city in the
way that we think? Until we're actually told, or have some dramatic insights
are are real, and not speculation, we're left guessing. Is it wrong to guess?
Not if we aren't presenting a particular idea as the final truth, but only
as a part of an on-going discussion or study of the subject.

There's also the other aspect to Shambhala. We have various instances where
there are several meanings or truths presented under a single phrase or term.
There may be more than one meaning to Shambhala, and I'm not convinced that
all the meanings are psychological or metaphoric.

>> And the Tower of Infinite Thought. And
>> the passage in The Secret Doctrine talking about how from one generation of
>> Adepts to the next, their wisdom is tested and reproven by personal
>> experience. This organized effort for learning and perserving wisdom could
>> reasonably be called a "spiritual university" even if we cannot identify
>> a physical campus, with classrooms and labs.

>Fine, as long as we're clear about not taking it literally.

We do need to make sure that we're clear about what we're writing about,
and perhaps I used words that made it seem too literal.

>> It is not elitist to talk about stages of development and attempt to
>> understand what lies ahead for us. I'd rather find it a helpful thing to do.

>It really depend on how we apply the idea of stages to our own
>experience. An elitist distortion of the idea seems more the
>rule than the exception, when organizations start to get
>crystallized around the concept.

The problem rears its ugly head when one is presumed to be advanced, *because
of membership*. The idea of spiritual progress, of stages of development, of
a Path to follow, I would say, is fine, but it is not measured by external
trappings, certainly not by something as mundane as a membership card.

>> This is precisely why I cannot accept the Jungian typology, for instance; it
>> is too neat, too rigid, too complete, too much of appearing to be a final
>> answer.

>Yet infinitely expandable.

The subject of typology and the varieties of personality is another one
that we could bring our iconoclasm to, to break it apart and put it together
again in perhaps a better form than the orginal.

>> I won't deny that there are many failings and human limitations to the
>> Masters, *as we know them as Globe D men of flesh and blood.* But there
>> is also something more to them than apparent in the human personality that
>> most of us see, something that goes far beyond!

>But there's something more to *everyone* than most of us see!

Agreed. But that "something more" may be potential, rather than realized
spirituality.

>Glad we have cleared up some misunderstandings.

Many misunderstands arise through the limited power of a few written words
to fully convey an idea. This is why 'theos-l' is good, in that it provides
us with a way to clarify, re-clarify, and clarify yet again what we would
say, eventually, we hope, leading to an understanding and agreement.

Sometimes, though, agreement is not possible on all points. This may be the
case in my discussions with JRC. Even though when we don't come to agreement
on all points, we can still can respectfully disagree, and come up with
some guidelines for peaceful coexistence.

>Eldon, you are an excellent discussion partner-- precise, cordial and
>thorough.

Thanks for a few kind words. I need more practice adding them to my
writings, and when I get a few, I'm reminded of this shortcoming. Hopefully
I will learn, in addition to writing in a civil, balanced manner, to
add words of encouragement to others as well.

-- Eldon