Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00446)

Chuck:

>Ouch!

Some of these quotes do seem like the Mahatmas are hitting
us on the head!

>This is one of the times I find myself wondering what the
>real agenda of the Masters was in writing that.

But they were speaking to Sinnett, and he
may have needed things expressed in a certain way. I'm not
sure, though, that they did a good job of training him,
considering how he eventually started going to seances to
trying to remain in contact with the Masters, resorting to
spiritualistic mediums to be his contact!

>Given the historic fact that when people think
>they have the REAL TRUTH they have this unpleasant tendency
>to try to kill everyone who they think has a not so real
>truth, why would KH even write such a thing?

He also said to Sinnett that his teachings, if told directly,
would sound like "insane gibberish," and Sinnett would have
to settle for crumbs. Only those that "come to us" would get
the full teachings.

Given the tendency for people to attack others with different
views, I can understand why they would not teach openly,
and why the Mysteries are kept secret, reserved for the
initiated, for those whose lips are sealed against betrayal.

The emphasis on "Truth is one" may have been meant to
encourage Sinnett to pay more careful attention to what he
was being taught.

>Would it not have made more sense from their point of view to
>say "Look, everyone makes mistakes, but you get oodles of
>incarnations ... to work them out. If you go off on a spiritual
>tangent this time, you'll fix it later on."

True, everyone makes mistakes, and there's a lot of time left
to make up for them. But the purpose of the Hierarchy of
Compassion and the Path is so that people can hasten their
evolution and more quickly participate in the bodhisattva
work, in the work of uplifting the world. We can screw around
and take zillions of lifetimes to get our act together, or
we can become significant forces for good in the world early
on. The choice is individual, but the Masters would be
concentrating on those that might help out in the work.

>When people start talking about who is a real Theosophist,
>they remind of a an incident at Olcott in 1992.

>As a prelude to World Parliament of Religions the next year,
>a sort of symposium took place ... after the representatives
>of some different (and a couple very different) local
>religious bodies spoke, one of the plague asked the Lutheran
>minister what he was doing on a panel with "false religions"?

>At that point John Algeo, who had the misfortune of chairing
>the thing, started to turn red in the face and sputter and
>looked at me with the obvious thought of "Chuck, you're
>right, we shouldn't be doing this."

Sounds like an unmoderated discussion list? Anyone can come
in, perhaps as a group, and start telling everyone that
their beliefs or studies represent a "false religion". The
Lutheran Minister sounds like he was open minded, but the
heretics (the Jews for Jesus) showed a total narrowness of
mind that precluded themselves from seeing anything noble
or valuable in the program.

We have, though, two different issues there. First is not
being narrow-minded, and allowing for other points of view
of the same truth, or allowing for other approaches to the
same spiritual goal. The other issue is that, simply put,
some things are true and others are false, and the reality
of life doesn't change because different people hold
different and subjective opinions about it.

>There may very well be one ultimate spiritual truth but
>there are as many paths to it as there are people.

As to ultimate spiritual truths and goals, I'd agree. But
as to more immediate information about human life, the
nature of the world in which we live, and the occult teachings,
*these are not ultimate truths*, they are true in a simple
and ordinary way, like the fact that the moon orbits the
earth, and not simply a matter of personal, subjective opinion.

>If we start judging who has the one, true, Theosophy, we are
>going to get ourselves into terrible trouble and while I am
>very skeptical about Karma, if there is such a thing my
>personal guess is that it will heavier on those who judge those
>whose spiritual paths are different from their own than on
>those who follow the different path.

Most people are living ordinary lives, dead to the spiritual,
unaware of anything that goes beyond their day-to-day events
of life. Some have a vague spiritual yearning, and are looking
for something, but don't know just what. A few are approaching
the Path, and are engaging real evolutionary processes within.

When you talk about each person having their own path, and
not judging others, that's fine. But you need to specify
which type of people you're talking about before we can
proceed. The ordinary soulless person, someone not ensouled
in the spirit, is definitely lacking in something, and they
are not following an equal but different path; they are
simply asleep. Some may be ready for awakening; most may
not have inwardly ripened to the point of being ready to
open up to the sun.

>It's a damned big universe out there and we really know very
>little, to little to say who is right.

The "no one knows" argument only goes so far. It's a
useful idea to present for purposes of keeping peace
among people of widely different views, especially if
the people tend to be combative. But the idea stands
before us as a barrier to our own deeper studies if
we actually take it seriously!

-- Eldon