Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00252)

Jerry S. writes>
>	As Alexis has noted, wolves are actually gentle.  Sheep
>can be as nasty as anything, you know.  My use of the terms, spawned
>by Bjorn's horror at what he called the theosophical "wolves," was not
>directed at gentleness vs nastiness but rather at sheepishly following
>the literature, or using one's experiences to wolfishly shift the chaff from
>the theosophical wheat.

Richard Ihle writes>
Ok, now I get it.

One might be wise, however, not to overlook the possibility that there may be
very few, if any, common sheep on this list if one thinks of them in your
latter way.

First appearances may be deceiving.  Underlying motives are important.
 Perhaps many of those who seem sheep-like are really those who are the most
serious about trying to establish an elevated, wolf-style "dominance
position" for themselves.  Think you, Jerry, that your hard-acquired modicum
of personal theosophical knowledge makes you any sort of worthy in their
eyes?

Think again.  All the literature-muncher has to do to pass you up is to take
the "faith-leap" that his or her knowledge comes by means of a holy line of
Preternatural Dispensation, and you are defaulted below him or her with no
further ado whatever.  This is why there is such a big commotion every time
the "Masters" issue is brought up:  without a True-Jesus in the background
somewhere, the Jehovah's Specially Appointed Witnesses at your door would
just be an off-duty retail clerk with unattended nose hair and a homemaker
with blue-light-special shoes going around bothering people.

Similarly, without the capital ~M~ on ~Master~ or the ~T~ on ~Theosophical
doctrine~, a certain type of person apparently has hard time thinking that he
or she is better than the next guy. . . .

No, I am unaware of any common sheep on this list.  Here, we have BIG,
egoically purposeful sheep whose merest turds are like mountains coming down
to scatter a few tiny wolves. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle