Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00623)

Tom Robertson writes-->
In the early days of my involvement in the TS, I considered what I would do
if a Master materialized during one of our meetings.  I may have "kissed-up"
to him, then, but now, I believe that's the last thing any kind of superior
being would respect.  If anyone needs falsehood from me in order to gain my
friendship, I wouldn't want theirs.

Richard Ihle writes-->
I can sympathize with this sentiment.  One of the things which turned me off
about Muktananda, for example, was seeing a long line of Westeners crawling
up to kiss his foot.  On the other hand, if he materialized right here in the
room with me now and wanted some show of deference to the "lineage of gurus"
he was part of, I can guarantee you that I would pucker-up pronto.  

Yes, I would be a good ~Muslim~ (which I think means "submitter" or
"surrenderer").  Anyway, when you think about it, what difference would it
make to a person who has done enough meditation to ~actually~ know that he or
she is not the energy, body, emotions, or mental nature?  At some higher,
more rarefied level, the kisser and kissed are the same Thing anyway, aren't
they?  Thus, perhaps an outward show of subordination may merely symbolize
the egoic condition of consciousness that the chela is aspiring to--and, of
course, since the guru is already supposed to be more or less stabilized in
Buddhi-manas consciousness, he or she egoically cannot have a "foot," anyway.


But alas, Muktananda gave me the impression that he knew he had a foot;
therefore, I didn't kiss it.

RI-->
Perhaps logic is just the slow vapor trail which forms after the
flawless/flawed jet of intuition, perception, or apprehension has flown over.
 Perhaps logic is even worthless unless it initially has something valid to
manipulate.  

TR-->
You seem to be implying that logic limits something.  I do not see how it
does that, although I can see how believing that nothing transcends logic
would be limiting.  But believing that there are truths which transcend logic
hardly justifies illogic.  Illogic is the sure road to superstition.

RI-->
Although not necessarily implied in my previous post, now that I think about
it, I suppose that a person who is too firmly "incorporated" with logic may
be hampering themselves in terms of immediate apprehension, intuition, or
"transcendental perception."  Just as a mental nature which is "flexible"
enough to juxtapose dissimilar planes can be helpful with creativity, so too,
perhaps, might a "slightly losened" logical overlay facilitate the
theosophical type of ~seeing~.

Where we may really disagree, however, is in your statement, "Illogic is the
sure road to superstition."  My view is that ~faulty initial perception~, and
not illogic, is the more-travelled freeway.  

For example, during WWII a phenomenon called "cargo cults" arose.  Some very
primitive people in remote places saw for the first time the big cargo planes
unloading all kinds of material goods.  The people thought that the planes
were "birds of the gods," and they developed all sorts of ceremonies etc. to
honor and worship the Great Ones who had sent them.  Objectively speaking,
many of their activities might have been regarded as perfectly logical--if,
that is, one granted the validity of their initial perception.

Another possible example is in the statement "women want to be dominated by
men."  (This has been stated in a number of ways, so I'm not even sure of
your original wording any more.)  Now, there is a good possibility that this
was based on some personal perception or observation of yours.  If it was,
that is good because that is what theosophy is, after all (assuming that the
perception is aided by your own "divine" resources, of course).  All of the
things you said after this first statement and which were based upon it
seemed quite logical to me.  The trouble, of course, was that I didn't ~see~
the matter in exactly the same way to begin with.

For the record, I can perhaps relate to a little of what might have prompted
you to make the statement.  As a long-time high school teacher, I have been
amazed by the type of boys that many of even my best TAG girls sometimes
gravitate toward--regular Neanderthals and criminals in some cases.  If I
were forced to make a "theosophical" statement about this it would be along
these lines:  "Many younger women often seem fascinated by and may be drawn
toward young men who seemingly have greater power than they have--power of
either a physically or psychologically dominant nature."

However, it is also part of my initial perception that perhaps the ~last~
thing these girls really want is to be dominated by such boys.   

It has been my experience, at least, that the girls seem almost invariably
surprised and dismayed once they realize they are being dominated and treated
unfairly; certainly, they do not seem interested in encouraging even further
domination.  Perhaps all the girls were after in the first place was a way to
~augment their own power by means of association~ or something; however, it
seems very clear to me that they were not seeking the opportunity to
surrender their power to someone else.  Perhaps some young women can be
fascinated by horses for a similar reason:  they want to be near the horse,
ride the horse, make the horse go where they want, etc.--but they do not want
the horse to suddenly start ordering them around and making their lives
miserable.  

Thus, perhaps both you and I may remain indefectible logicians, but much of
our future logical thinking about women will be diametrically opposed because
we didn't see the basic thing in the same way to begin with.  Maybe you're
right; maybe I'm right; maybe Kym will set us both straight.  Who knows?

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle