Re: Theosophical quotations
May 30, 1998 10:23 AM
by Dallas TenBroeck
May 30th 1998
Several things to comment on -- to adjust understandings, mostly
mine, I guess.
I put comments in between our earlier ones. Hope you won't mind.
> Date: Saturday, May 30, 1998 3:44 AM
> From: "Kym Smith" <email@example.com>
> Subject: Theosophical quotations
>>So one is not going to be able to "imitate" the Masters of
>>Wisdom. One either becomes one, or one remains in one or other
>>of the lower levels of achievement.
>It is then as I suspected: Judge's terminology was. . .well. .
>thereby, misleading. Which is all right - he is human, however,
>take writings of so-called "learned ones" as agreeable without
>analyzing the true content of it - whether it is workable or
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, JUDGE WAS TRYING TO SAY "EMULATE" --TO PUT
INTO ACTION THE HIGHEST MORAL QULITIES AND THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF
THOUGHT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO AS "imitations." He assumes that
the Adepts are in that condition because they do that all the
time. He also assumes that we are all trying sincerely to
emulate such a condition in our lives -- that is how I understand
>>To avoid controversy is to make a statement that is reasonable,
>>logical and presents the Laws one senses to be in operation, so
>>that all concerned know, as exactly as one can state it, one's
>Is this your personal definition of "avoiding controversy?"
>but this sounds more like a definiton for 'avoiding
>making clear your ideas) as 'controversy' means to take part in
Dalas : Admittedly mine as I understand it.
Controversy to me is argument. If one knows what is universally
true (and who does, as we can only approxuimate that) then one
expresses it. Better to say like the Buddhist bhikkus: "Thus
have I heard .... " Gives the recipient freedom.
And leaves an "out" for the offeror ---
I prefer "exchange of ideas." If that happens then we both sit
on the same side of the figuartive table. I neve liked sitting
>>As to "robotic exchanges," well I guess that one may interpret
>>them as one chooses. I would say that it is not sentiment that
>>is at stake, but knowledge.
>Until one learns to handle or include the sentiments of others,
that one can
>never be a true teacher of "knowledge." The teacher is ignoring
a good part
>of the individual that is before him or her - a part that is
>in guiding the student toward Truth. Humans are NOT MACHINES -
and to treat them as such is hardly compassionate and tends to
cause the student to flee to a more balanced mode of instruction.
Who can pretend to be a "teacher ?" ( Not I.) Knowledge is no
one's property, and what one knows can be offered.
Seeking to know the ins and outs of another's psyche sounds kind
of sneaky to me. Possibly manipulative. I prefer a free
exchange on the basis of common knowledge.
In those quotes there are some ideas that seem (to me) to
universalize our attitude, and to direct it at something more
universal, grander. And, no selection of quotes is of more value
than to the one who makes that selection. I can't guarantee that
anyone else will enjoy them as I did, But we can all wonder why
they were phrased the way they are.
One of the things that I try to keep in mind is: all are capable
of thinking and making independent decisions as I can, and so I
try to respect their integrity.
>>If you are new to Theosophy and its vistas, then
>>you need to secure some view of its concepts. Do you have, or
>>have you recently read THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by H.P.Blavatsky ?
>Yes, I have read THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, ISIS UNVEILED, THE SECRET
>THE ANCIENT WISDOM, THE MAHATMA LETTERS, OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, and
>various readings. And my interpretation of those books seems to
>many on this list. Go figure.
Dalas: I bet each understands them in their own way. How else
can we prgress individually, nut in discussing them with others
we do realize that there may be other ways of viewing the same
material. At that point Ibegin asking me: Why ?
To "read," and to "understand"are (to me)two different (and still
very puzzling) things. I say this because every time that I
return to consult with those books I seem to find some depth,
some statement that I overlooked in the first place. I try to
take the attitude that when a subject comes up for discussin I
ought to be able to discuss it, in terms of philosophy . But, I
am not always very successful.
>>find on examination, that the Professors there are
>>Nature, and aspects that they discover, are already embodied
>>operative in Nature. They repeat to you and me (teach) that
>>which they have established to be repetitive -- to be Law, in
>>some form or another. Based on partial information they also
>>erect hypotheses and theories which may, or may not be,
>>We do not boggle over that.
>Some of us "boggle" over that - assuming I know what you mean by
>>to investigate himself, and come to his own conclusions as to
>There is a new movement which encourages the use of
>language - call it "sensitivity training." I ask and would
>use of this style language should you address any of my further
>"her/himself, his/her, she/he, his/her or one." It is
>advantageous to be aware of just how powerful small changes,
such as gender
>neutral language, - however dumb one may think them to be - aid
I am aware of "gender sensitivity. For me the use of gender is
annoying, since what I am trying to say is something to the
soul/mind. And I do not believe that it has a "gender." So
excuse me if I hit a sore spot -- not intentional. I am afraid
that I fumble with this one, and it is personally annoying.
>>You may not be satisfied at these answers, but supposing that I
>>gave you rules, rites, ceremonies and topped that off with a
>>stiff fee -- would you be better satisfied ?
>Uh, no. . .you can leave off the "stiff fee."
>>To "avoid controversy and yet fight for the right," is in my
>>esteem making a statement of the principles of which one is
>>basing ones' self.
>Again, your definition of "controversy" doesn't really seem to
fit with this
>statement. Ghandi, Schweitzer, King, Jesus, etc - were and
continue to be
>figures of "controversy" and they certainly seem to be fighting
for what is
>>said: "signify nothing."
>Shakespeare gave poor Macbeth a bum rap.
Dallas: I respect the memory and the work of all those great
Wish I could emulate some of those characteristics if possible.
Macbeth had it coming -- and I guess I do too. But I prefer
Ariel over Caliban any time as characters -- Also I prefer "The
Best to you as always, Dal.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application