Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00582)

Chuck:

>What I am most concerned with is the human tendency to
>impose things, ideas, actions, etc. on others whether they
>are ready for them or not.

I know. Sometimes it's hard to know how much to talk about,
and how much to hold back. It's even harder with theos-l,
having people with so many different backgrounds, one could
say one thing and go over the heads of most people, and
say something else that's so plain and obvious that everyone
see's it and wonders "so what!"

There are subtle differences in how we express ourselves,
and sometimes we may come across as imposing ourselves,
other times as asserting a view that is important to us,
and yet other times making a matter-of-fact take-it-or-leave-it
statement that is not imposing upon other people. (Richard Ihle
is good at this third kind of writing.)

>I know at times I seem like an arrogant, self assured SOB
>who does not believe that he can be wrong, but I have made
>enough mistakes in my life that I am hesitant about assuming
>that any position I take is automatically the right one.

Here it may depend upon how you determine your convictions.
If they were ego-centric, saying "this is my idea and therefore
it's right," then such hesitation is a good practice. If they
have different degrees of conviction, based upon personal
reflection and experience, then it would be find to speak
in stronger language about the things you are more certain
of, and more softly about the things you are still doubtful
and hesitate about.

(At this point, I can foresee some readers of this message
latching on the terms "still doubtful and hesitate about" and
step in to say: "But a degree of doubt is a good thing, and
keeps one's thinking from getting stagnant." I agree
with that, but am talking about something different here.)

The important thing here, I think, is to be *genuine* to
what you believe in and care for. That means not pretending
to know it all, nor being unnecessarily cynical and doubtful
about things you very well know to be true were you to look
within and consult your own heart.

>And the thought of my fellow theosophists acting as if they
>are totally certain because they have a particular
>interpretation of the writings makes me very nervous.

True. It can give people an uneasy feeling that something's
not quite right. But it's really the total certainty part,
the rigid, dogmatic certainty that someone is right, that
raises this suspicion.

That certainty could be in ideas and how people describbe
things, but it also could be in someone's interpretations
of their personal experiences, and of their status and
importance in the world.

One person could assert the idea "the moon is made of green
cheese!" forcefully, with total conviction, and we could
disagree. Another could tell us of their "astral visit to
the pole star, where they'd received instructions in the
divine mysteries!" Again, we could disagree.

There are, then, two problems, and not just the one that
we started with. First is a form of inflexible conviction.
Second is false, but sincerely-held beliefs, beliefs that
are wrong regardless of how flexibly they are held. Both
are cause for our concern, in both ourselves and others
that we deal with.

>What I argue for is patience and the willingness to examine
>ideas and beliefs without becoming married to them.

That is a good intellectual approach. But that also keeps
the ideas at arms length, and keeps them from becoming
incorporated in our lives. At some point, we need to move
forward from simply being pundits, and become practioners
of the spiritual. Ideas and opinions about love, for instance,
can be examined at arms length, with dispassion, but it's
quite different to make love a living part of our lives.

As we make it so, our ideas about it may change, and even
seem somewhat fixed to the people still dealing with the
concept of love as an intellectual game, but that appearance
is due to *their lack of living experience* and not to
anything wrong that we may be doing.

The same is true of any great virtue, and the great
Mystery Teachings, which we're incredibly fortunate
to be exposed to, given our status of being outside
the temple doors.

>And while I have an actual tremendous respect for the SD,
>I cannot believe that it is the final word on the ways
>things work.

It is not the final word. But I think that despite all
its limitations, it's fairly accurate and a valuable source
of study. I see it as basically true, and accurate to the
degree that the Mysteries have been revealed in it. I
expect that further revelations of the Mysteries, were they
to be made, would be consistent with in, in harmony with
what it said, and would only serve to deepen one's understanding
of what it talks about.

(This is entirely different than I'd expect some people
to reply. Some would say that not being the final word,
the SD will be disproven in part or totality by later
discoveries or future revelations of the Mysteries. This
view, I think, is mistaken, and arises from failing to
see the tremendous depths of wisdom found in that book.)

>In a very real sense, I see Theosophy as a transcending the
>written teachings, using them as a starting point but the
>real process is something that occurs in the individual
>Theosophist and is far more mysterious.

I agree again. This is something that I've said in dozens
of ways, using different words, over the past year. The
study is the *starting point*. And the important thing is
that inner awakening and the inner processes that are
started by the study.

>It is, in a very real sense, something that cannot be
>expressed in words, merely experienced and that experience
is the true goal of Theosophy.

The goal is to *awaken people*. But at the same time,
this does not discount the idea that there is a definite
body of knowledge about life -- both outer and unseen --
the cumulative wisdom of humanity, that is carried by
the Mahatmas, knowledge that we can come to study, to
the degree that we are ready, open, and worthy of that
study.

>The study of the writings has a place. We would be
>immeasureably the poorer without them, but there is
>something more and I hope that we do not get so caught
>up in the writings that we miss it, just as it is
>important to not be so concerned about playing the
>notes that one misses the music.

Again, I agree. But only the most skilled musicians
play without their scores. Beginners need the written
music to play by. And an intellectual study is important
at every step of the way, even for the Mahatmas and
beyond. It's not something that we "grow through" and
then leave behind.

>The TS, in its various manifestations, spends almost
>all its time working on the head. It should begin working
>on the heart as well.

It needs heart-centered work, that's true, but I'm doubtful
that there is really that much use of the intellect. Books
are read, but the degree of serious study, thought, and
reflection that the typical member applies leaves much
to be desired!

-- Eldon