Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00175)

>    Now my dear sir, Tis true you can say anything, over the net. However,
> what you say may effect the minds of others, even if you are "playfully"
> trying to get a reaction from others, simply for "da trill of it all"

What we all say affects the minds of others. The beliefs of many people on
this list - that you describe below - literally enrages some types of
Christian fundamentalists. They would, in fact, consider them not only
repulsive, but quite close to being evil. I have not told any person they
should act in any way - merely said, in response to someone else spouting
the "golden rule", that it was not anything I, nor *anyone else* - including
those that spouted it - have ever followed, and even further, that it has
been used, in various forms, for centuries as an excuse to avoid conflict
that was genuinely felt, and as a means of defending against polite
nastiness ... mentioning that *intentions* can be quite ill, even while the
means of their *expression* can appear to follow the golden rule. Of course,
the predictible reaction to such statements followed, and, of course, no one
answered the actual *points* of the argument. Point is, the reactions in the
"minds of others" to what I said are mild in comparison to the reactions in
some of the *other* "minds of others" to even speaking of Chelas, and
"Ascended Masters". Does this mean we should all just close our mouths? No.
It means that the minds of others are the responsibility of those others. We
all act in the manner that our intentions and emotions and intelligence
suggests. Some of us believe that enjoining others to "follow the golden
rule" is a service of some sort. Or is the way to express good intentions. I
happen to think that trying to think independently through age-old
aphorisms, looking at their *ultimate effects* (often the precise opposite
of what they *say* they intend to do), in fact, to say precisely those
things that challenge old, comfortable ideas, is both more difficult, as
well as in the long run being far more *beneficial*, than mouthing cliches.
Anyone may disagree with me. Most usually do. But we all serve as we see
fit.

> Many
> believe that H.P.B. was the devoted Chela of the Lodge of Ascended
Masters,
> and was in constant communication with Them while striving to bring the
> Ancient Wisdom Religion into the modern world, unchanged yet in a form
> suitable for its comprehension.

I believe at least some form of this. But I don't put any of them on
pedestals.

> This task as well as the position of Chela
> DEMANDS sobriety, that is abstinence from any kind of intoxicant----
She
> lived only to fulfill her mission, and the behavior you have described
would
> have    inevitably rendered her useless to the Masters.  This is only
logic
> and with some thought you will see that what ever you have read along
those
> lines was patently false.
>        I do recommend the book H.P.B. by Sylvia Cranston so you may get a
> clearer picture of the life and work of this great woman!

Well, I don't claim to be anything - but I was first a Theosophist 20 years
ago, have read that book, as well as many others, both about her as well as
the others founders, by both supporters and critics (and the Cranston one is
definately one of the more "officially approved" ones). As well as having
read (I think) everything HPB wrote. And I fear you are simply utterly
wrong - you *don't* have a clear picture of that great woman if you think
she was a thoughtful, sober, kind woman. Rendered her useless to the
Masters? The *sobriety* of the Chela? Do not idealize HPB, nor the masters.
The historical evidence is that she pretty much broke every rule modern
theosophists associate with "purity" and "sobriety". She was wild, vitrolic,
passionate. *She dressed as a man and fought in a war*. She drank copious
amounts of wine. Ate meat. Smoked. This was not Gandhi or King. She
*blasted* not only her contemporary critics, but - hell, have you *read* the
Secret Doctirne? Her masterwork's writing style is to make her own points,
to unfold the "Ancient Mysteries", through the literary method of not only
contrasting those ideas with present and past thinkers, but in some cases
absolutely slicing them into little pieces quite unceremoniously. This was
*not* a woman who thought that *being nice* - in the terms of some socially
accepted norms of politeness - had a single thing to do with truth, or the
even creation of brotherhood. In fact, she pretty much caused trouble, upset
people, almost everywhere she went. She was a great woman, but she was not
always a *nice* woman, and did not even hold that as a goal. And a good deal
of the time, she *didn't* "follow the golden rule". -JRC