Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00856)

>Brenda,
>
>There is sense in which I admire your patience with Daniel but I am
>sincerely wondering what gives you the incentive to defend his approach so
>vigorously? I am assuming you may be seeing something I can't see in his
>posting. I find it hard to justify encouraging his continued posting
>because of his attitude of extremely exclusivity, proselyzation, and even
>violence at times.

I think partly because as an engineer he made a noteworthy contribution to
society, but also because I remember my own experience with theosophy. When
I found theosophy it wasn't simply reading, discussing, and "romantically"
growing in wisdom. If something inside of Daniel tells him to hit the trail,
and he's listening to that inner voice, it's because through what we "know"
we will reach the "unknown." My years before working at Olcott were filled
with terrors that I can only dwell on scientifically. What happens to
someone as they begin to embrace the teaching of the Masters? We each are
deciding that we must give up the way of life we were taught in school, by
our parents (to some extent), and which we perceive many of those around us
living. We have to divorce society in order to enter a "wise" society. The
tearing away from my friends and family and school was significant enough
for me at college age, but imagine how much more desperate the event is for
a man who has dwelled peacefully enough for thirty or forty years (in this
case I don't know how man). Shouldn't he ask himself how many delusions is
he still encountering? The proper answer would be none. He is throwing off
delusion or has succeeded in throwing it off and found what to him is now
the most precious thing in life. Here on theos-l he is able to speak to
other people who have also an association with "wise" society, who have gone
beyond what the world has to offer in order to find their true home, and
he's only speaking about what he knows and holds dear.
>
>If everything that Daniel says is theosophy then anything anyone says is. I
>understand that you are saying that he, like all of us, is on a journey and
>will eventually be united with Reality. This is to look beyond the
>personality into the future Daniel who will be wise and kind and tolerant
>but for now there is a historical Daniel who must, like all of us, struggle
>with the idiosyncratic nature of our personality. Hopefully by setting some
>limits to the inflation of his ego will further that potential. The idea of
>limits is not repressive since all on the list have subscribed to some form
>of netiquette and occassionally have to be reminded of that.

Setting limits might be useful. It's okay with me if we make a list and call
it theos-christ or whatever. After dealing with delusions which he ignored
for x number of years, this man is fairly triumphant in wacking and putting
asunder any further claims of "sociable" mankind. I want to join him in
wailing against delusion. We, too, are not safe from it. Some people feel
that as long as they stick to a form of theosophy which is not arguable that
they have safeguarded themselves against ever being deluded. I don't agree
with this. Ensnared by mara, we go along until we break the bonds or
"crucify the lower passions."

If it were up to me, I would encourage Daniel to attempt some purification
which would include no alcohol or drugs and if he could attempt it, no meat
consumption and a hold on the sex-life. These limits are here for all of us
to work with or ignore.

>Like I have stated before I enjoy the subject matter that Daniel brings to
>us but the brutality and narrowness of his ideology doesn't lead to
>enlightened dialogue but to argumentation, irritation and frustration.

I don't have the words, let alone the thoughts, to raise issues that might
interest Daniel, but I do have my resources and I have faith in Blavatsky's
teachings and ability to address any interested enquirers. For some reason
those feelings aren't really able to reach me through the internet. I'm so
thankful that I'm not physically in the presence of people as their feelings
would cause me concern on being able to continue coping non-hysterically.
Our feelings are so far apart that the feeling world doesn't reach me
through the computer and that's why I think it is possible to discuss here
in ways that it isn't possible to do when we meet in person.

>Lastly, I don't see the same latitude given to Rich as you give to Daniel.
>Is that because Rich is further along in the theosophical journey? I agree
>with you that Rich is wrong to say that nothing of Daniel's perspective
>contains seeds of theosophy in them but I identify with Rich's inability to
>relax when he reads Dan's posts. Daniel believes in a prince of peace -
>would that he could further the goal of peace through respecting others and
>their spiritual paths. I know how hard it will be for him because I held
>views very much like Daniel many years ago.

Rich has as firmly accepted theosophy as Daniel has accepted Christianity.
Rich is set upon continuing a course of study which is all that he really
needs. He doesn't need to hear about what other people are doing because he
distracts him from his course. I feel myself becoming better qualified and
better prepared to discuss theosophy with anyone who might enter upon it in
the way that Daniel did and for this I can thank him.

>Anyway Brenda, I would like to hear what your views are on this, I am
>asking not to continue a flame but if there is a better way to approach
>Daniel and others like him I would like to learn it.
>
>Under the Mercy,
>
>Arthur Paul Patterson

I think the best way to study with Daniel is to open your heart to him, hear
his pleas, hear his longing for eternal truth, and if you're unable to
identify with him in this, shut him out of your discussions. It's a cruel
world when we find we love something so much and it's so essential in our
lives, but we have had to live without it for so many (even a few childhood)
years. When we come to realize that others have found somewhat the same
potential within themselves and within their field of study that we have
found, then we become more settled with the idea that we are not here to
prevent them from their chosen path, only that we hope to be allowed to
continue alongside of them in our chosen paths which would include what HPB
has given to us in the way of raising science to see its goals as fulfilling
of the Divine Plan and seeing truth in any form. Since he is certain of The
Bible he should stick to it until his nature can be refined enough for his
studies to continue or if he has the right social support until he finds
some peace and cooperation with his fellow Christians.

I don't really have a prediction of the outcome of our discussions. Because
science has found importance alongside of religion and as well as
philosophy, I am resting asured of receiving truth from many parallel
disciplines. However, Daniel may still feel betrayed by science, as an
engineer he did not receive the guidance he needed or longed for. Only due
to the efforts of Christians like himself has he been willing to open his
heart and speak his own worth. It's natural to want to attract others. I'm
only sorry that we as an organization still don't have enough outreach to
have provided him with the kind of life he would choose if he could. It's
really related to karma, I'm sure. When we decide to learn more and reach
for the light is probably due to our past experiences.

Theosophy is still to me the best possible solution to my own dilemma. He
may prefer not to study rounds, consciousness, the theosophical teachings
regarding "powers in man," etc., but I feel we have something to offer and
that we are working to reach people wherever they might be in their path if
they wish to ask us for our opinion.