Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00505)

>	I almost answered in sarcastic mode, but I'm trying to be kinder and
>gentler here.

Gee, thanks Bart. I appreciate it. I was NOT trying to be funny, though.

>	Try looking beyond the surface of the words. Try thinking of how each
>step is a necessity to reach the next. You should see that there are
>deeper meanings than a simple and simplistic reading might show.
>
>	Bart Lidofsky

First of all, each step is NOT a necessity to reach the next. The order
of steps given by HPB is the theosophical approach. This is NOT accepted
by most schools of occultism or magic. It is rather unique to theosophy,
and one of the reasons that I like HPB and her theosophy. The main
argument to HPB is her "sickly sweet" ethics, which are religious in tone
rather than magical or occult. Her ethical tone (which I do not like) is
NOT necessary. Plain common sense is all that is needed to make one
develop compassion. The BIG PROBLEM with her tone is that it 
encourages a sense of right and wrong, and this is exactly why the
Masters said in the MLs that religion is the primary scourge of mankind.
Speaking from my own experiences (Chuck, I think, will back me up)
as we experience other planes and slowly integrate spirituality into
our daily life, our sense of right and wrong dissolves into various shades
of gray.  The eventual goal is exactly what HPB tells us: to be like a
melon in that we are outeardly soft towards others while being ineardly 
hard on ourselves. Softness toward others comes from seeing grayness, 
from acceptance and compassion, and NOT from thinking them right or 
wrong. I know many ethical Christians, for example, but hardly any
who have real compassion.  Compassion and love are protective devices
on the inner planes, and for that reason alone should be cultivated. NOT
because love is right and hate is wrong, which is but our human way
of thinking. HPB knew this very well, but was a lot easier for her to
simply emphasize ethics and morals without any reason rationale. In
this, she follows the Hindu path. The Buddhist, and especially the Tibetan
path, is a lot more realistic (not so sickly sweet). I fully understand
that
she was speaking to a Christian audience, and put it all in words 
that they could understand.  But I wonder how many other theosophists
understand this?

Jerry S.
Member, TI