Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00540)

   I read with some interest various comments contributed by Gisele and Keith
and published in Digest 1151.  Herewith, a couple of my own:
        1.  My experience with Theosophists in general has been that, while
they pay "lip service" to the concept of The First Fundamental, they are
decidedly uncomfortable with it.  First off, they don't understand it (but
then who does?) and, secondly, they are not at all happy with the prospect of
ultimately losing (merging, actually) their individualities.  Which, I
suppose, is why they have difficulty contemplating such concepts as a "Group
Soul" or "Oversoul."  Fine for animals, of course, but not for us vastly
superior human beings.  We deserve better than that!  Right?  Reluctantly,
Theosophists (and just about everyone else come to think of it) accept the
idea that they will sooner or later lose their physical bodies.  Then
Theosophists go a step further and envision their astral bodies slowly
dissipating following physical death.  They (or at least some of them) can
even deal with the loss of what theosophy terms "The Lower Quaternary."  But
their individuality?  Hey, c'mon, the line has got to be drawn somewhere.
 How, they say, can I possibly give up my individuality and still exist as
me?  Nevertheless, if one delves deeply enough into the theosophical
literature, that (the concept of ultimate Unity) is the conclusion that will
be reached --- just as it was by Blavatsky and Judge and numerous others who
have gone before.  So why should Theosophists be distressed about Group Souls
and Clones and all the rest of it?  Perhaps because, at heart, they are a
little terrified of some of the ideas that theosophy propounds.  Certainly
most other people are ... which is why conventional Christian gatherings tend
to be so large and theosophical gatherings so small.  The former announce
that you can be WITH God.  The latter states (after you delve into it deeply
enough) that you ARE God.
          2.  Regarding the various "CWL" comments, I consider it a little
ironic that, had he had a proclivity for nicotine, society would have
accomodated him.  It still does today despite the appalling destructiveness
of cigarettes.  Or alcohol?  There are liquor stores everywhere.  Sadistic
tendencies?  Try professional hockey or, better still, boxing.  It would
appear that CWL's misfortune was to have virtually the only proclivity (i.e.
homosexualtiy) that society to date has beee unwilling to accomodate.  But
even that is slowly changing (witness all the "Gay Pride" parades of late).
Perhaps CWL's major fault was to incarnate a few decades too soon.  As Keith
would say --- NAMASTE ---     Dennis