Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00135)

Liesel:

>I wonder whether both of you could agree that human
>personalities are loosely classified into 7 rays ... I think
>that idea comes from the Masters.

You're making the suggestion that because we are of different
temperaments our approaches would be different. I'd agree to
a certain extent. A good deal of differences, though, I'd expect
to be due to unequal development. We're each ahead of the other
in different areas, and have to play catch up in different
aspects of our lives.

Using the "seven rays" is not a good example for this point,
though, because I'd tend to discount the idea. That's another
discussion, though ...

>there's Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, Jjana Yoga, & etc. ... all valid
>Paths chosen by individuals according to their talents,
>inclinations & beliefs.

We may all be at different points on the mountainside, and have
different paths in front of us to climb, but we're climbing
to the same peak. The paths are different because we're starting
from different points, not because we are essentially different
in essence.

The common idea is that the different yogas provide a path for
people of different types to travel a path appropriate to them.
But I'd disagree that we are essentially different, regardless
of the typology, be it astrological, Jungian, numerological,
or according to the seven rays.

Using a typology, we can classify people according to their
respective strengths and weaknesses. As the people grow and
evolve, they overcome the weaknesses and round out their
development. When we're all relatively perfected in the Seventh
Round, we're not pure forms of seven, eight, or twelve qualitatively
different types of humans. We're individualized and unique in
our own individual ways.

I've seen the idea of typology abused, where we simply
categorize everyone by the way they are, and end up saying
everything's ok, everyone's ok, nothing's better or worse
among people. This thinking is seen in the "politically
correct" thought, where recognition for individual intelligence
and merit are discarded and the lazy and stupid are held in
equal esteem with the achivers in society.

An example of the abuse of this type of thinking is with
Brenda, where in a discussion she is simply dismissed as
being "a feeling type", and therefore what she says can
be dismissed, for she is therefore someone ruled by feeling
rather than by mind and it doesn't matter what she says.
It does matter what we say and think, and regardless of
our classification into some arbitrary type, we are
responsible to learn to control our feelings, to mature,
to develope intelligence, and to awaken our spiritual
faculties.

(Note that I'm not getting on your case for anything that
you've written, but your comment on the seven rays provided
me an opportunity to write about something I consider important.)

>Seems to me, we owe it to each other
>to respect them as such. Matter of fact, it seems to me that
>each person's Path is different. No 2 people are exactly alike,
>so neither are their Paths.

We can agree that each path is individual. We may not agree on
a theosophical description of what happens with varous psychic
experiences, nor upon when and where they are appropirate.

>I was hoping you could agree on
>that & I was hoping that you could take it into account when
>you think of each other. You differ, & there's nothing wrong
>with that, except that you're throwing darts.

The appearance of "darts" may be due to the occasional sharp
words used, but not due to any actual hostility.

>I haven't been
>around Wheaton very much, but 1 thing I learned there from
>someone who was there. "Don't condemn someone else's actions,
>but try to show even the harshest some understanding, some
>tolerance, because you never can be sure of what the motivation
>is."

Yes. We don't judge others, always give them the benefit of
the doubt, and ask them what they mean by what they say or
why they've done something. We let the living person speak
for his or her motivation, rather than put words in their
mouthgs.

>Not that I always manage to think of this myself in the
>heat of things, but it seems to be a good rule to try to live by.

There may be a bit of heat here, in my discussion with JRC,
but it just means that things are cooking!

>Let JRC travel his chosen Path, let Eldon travel his, &
>think of each other with a bit of sympathy as "fellow
>travelers"(it just fits in here, even though I don't mean red
>ones.)

He is free to travel his path, but not to require me to believe
as he does. I can comment on psychic experiences from either my
standpoint of that of the theosophical teachings. He can offer
his interpretation of his angels as his personal view, but cannot
insist that only rosy, gushing admiration be offered in response.
(Nor can I expect such adulation to be poured upon my personal
views, which are on an equal basis of being open to commentary
by others.)

-- Eldon