Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00165)

At 02:18 AM 4/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Jerry S. wrote,
>
>"But when people go to the extreme of worrying about being "morally upright"
>(which is equivalent to holier than thou) then I can only feel sorry for
>them."
>
>
>Um -- I don't get it.  The words "morally upright" mean no more to me than
>simply "try to be good, altruistic people."  There is no air of superiority,
>no necessary comparison with anyone, only an impersonal standard of kindness,
>generosity, lessening of ego, etc.

I have always found words like "morality" and Morals" offensive becuase I
have never seen them used in any way but as extensions of a religous
point-of-view. Being altruistic is one thing, being "good" is a meaningless
term except when used to children and dogs.
>
>And I agree with Greg that ethics and morality is EXACTLY what Theosophy is
>founded on.  Even the most cursory look at *The Voice of the Silence* can
>assure us of that.

Ethics yes, but morelaity NO. Why would a Buddhist-Hindu Document support
what is essentially "Christian Morality"? HPB was clearly not a Christian.
>
>Furthermore, the training of the chela was not different in kind from the
>ordinary training the T.S. members were invited to pursue -- it was merely
>different in degree.  Look at HPB's articles on Chelaship, Occultism Versus
>the Occult Arts, etc. and see how very strict the rules were about morality,
>sexuality, truthfulness, diet, conduct., etc. etc.  The chelas were expected
>to be the most moral of all, in spite of having stirred up tremendous karmic
>forces within themselves that speedily brought down heaps of their own "junk"
>from past lives.  Chelas have the toughest row to hoe of all, in that they
>are held to HIGHER standards while feeling and suffering more intensely than
>anyone else -- usually in complete absence of CONSCIOUS contact from the guru
>until probation is passed.

Most of that, no matter who wrote it or is purported to have written it, is
sheer nonsense. Sexuality and diet have absolutely nothing to do with being
a good person. Conduct and truthfulness, of course do, but I will tell you
that being a self-appointed "Chela" is simply an ego trip and is, in fact,
unethical, becuase it presumes a kind of spiritual superiority which is both
harmful to others and useless to the self-appointed one. Don't forget, Adolf
Hitler was virtually asexual and a total vegetarian, but it didn't make him
a "good person". I would like to know on what grounds a person has the right
to make a probably baseless assumption that they are, in fact, a Chela of a
Guru, unless the Guru him or her self informs them of this.
>
>That at least is what I read from HPB's published material.
>
The Esoteric section of the TS is a haven for puritannical up-tight people.
Chuck Cosimano calls them "Buffoons". I disagree, Buffoons are harmless,
puritans are not! And that is what I read from life itself. Jerry Schueler
says they would make HPB "giggle", I rather think it would enrage her, she
was easily enraged.

alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA