[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Peter/Paul on Self and selfishness

Jan 28, 1999 11:26 AM
by Bazzer (Paul)

Dear Rich,

>  But the truth is, this particular
> thread developed because Paul was attempting to justify his rudeness and
> sarcasm through claiming the lower self isn't real, and Peter
> called him on it
> (gently).

Do cut 'n paste your evidence, Rich, particularly of "rudeness and sarcasm"
(presumably towards Peter).  Question: on what basis do you judge another's

There is ONE *impersonal* REALITY.

The thread developed as a result of an exchange of views/comments largely
between Peter & Paul.  Unless one is mistaken, an honest opinion is not a
crime (thesophical or otherwise) and honesty should at least include warts
'n all.

As was recently pointed out by Tony, Peter and Paul have been pals for some
years. Peter: if something has changed you'd better shout! Ha:-)

Peter has many, many, fine qualities and is an earnest student of HPB.

> So what is the lesson here?

Not to judge by appearances?

> Because there is *really* no lower
> self, we can
> sting the lower self of others with impunity, and consider it a
> great service
> to them?
>   Because there is *really* no passage of time in the
> Great Breath,
> we shouldn't plan for tomorrow? Because there is *really* no physical
> ownership, taking whatever we want is okay?  Because there is *really* no
> importance in the material body, murder is okay?
> But we know that motive is the Great Determinor, and I think 99% of all
> insults come from a low space in us, a desire to "get back" at
> some one who
> has hurt us in some physical or psychological way.

Only 99%?

> Paul, you quote idealistic passages from the Gita and the Voice,
> proving that
> we should all be acting light-years ahead of where we are, and utterly
> unconcerned about the lower self.


>  In fact, you seem to suggest we should
> ignore it,
> and learn to be as sarcastic as HPB in some of her
> writings.

Once again, maybe you could cut n' paste where this is the case,
particularly any suggestion to "learn" sarcasm.

>  First
> of all, none of us are HPB, as you have been so brilliantly
> arguing for weeks.

Not aware of arguing anything of the sort.  More cut 'n pasting, please. Why
waste time "arguing" something which is self evident (viz, "none of us are

> We can't come close to her.  So how can we justify behaving like
> her?

Who is it that is justifying behaving like her?

>  "Follow not me nor my path, but the one I show" she wrote.

Follow not "me" nor "my", but "the one".

>  Secondly, HPB
> almost never
> has barbs aimed at individuals; rather, she attacks large and negative
> institutions, like the Church, brahminism, East Asian Buddhism, etc.

Yes, that does seem to be the case.

> It seems, Paul, you want to have it both ways:

Please explain.

> you say don't ever, ever
> criticize HPB,

Cut 'n paste your evidence, please.

> because we can never reach to Her level;

More cut 'n pasting, please.

> but act
> just like we
> have the wisdom and authority she has to criticize others and
> hurl insults.


> So where does our FIRST OBJECT come in, that of universal brotherhood?
> Rich

Is not the First Object the beginning and the end of our endeavours?

Kindest regards,

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application