Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00225)

Dear Perry

Thank you for your reply.

The proverb you quote is full of wisdom to me. From its innate wisdom 
however it would seem not to insist on its theoretical or practical 
application in each and every situation.

You write, "?we should always be prepared to be prepared to listen to 
others regardless of where that source maybe."
Whilst this is obviously wise in many circumstances, it becomes 
nonsensical dogma in others.

Consider the example of an airline pilot who has collapsed at the 
flight control lever during flight. To whom would we turn for advice 
and action? Mr Smith, an accountant or Mrs Jones a competent airline 
pilot?

We are not all equal in every situation and our opinions and 
competence are not necessarily equal in credibility or expertise. 

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics has 
certainly caused us to be more cautious and less dogmatic about our 
previously held convictions concerning the nature of life. Indeed 
these aspects of science were foretold by Madame Blavatsky.  Post-
modern thought has done the same. But neither of these mindsets 
should be considered as absolutes where nothing is certain anymore 
and all opinions considered equal in value. Sir Isaac Newton's 
clockwork universe is alive and well at our "earthly" level of 
functioning.
In our dimension of consciousness there are countless numbers of 
invariables. A person who falls from a thousand feet onto solid 
concrete will die. Another who is deprived of oxygen for one hour at 
room temperature will suffer the same fate. And a competent airline 
pilot's opinion and expertise is more valid and credible than is an 
accountant's, whose opinion is unimportant when flying a plane.

Madame Blavatsky and her teachers have more than ably demonstrated a 
profound knowledge and competence concerning the machinations of the 
cosmic process. Not simply by their words alone, which are often 
metaphorical and symbolic, but to where these take many of us in our 
inner journey and explorations of consciousness.

As mentioned earlier, and to repeat once again, this doesn't 
necessarily mean that they had or have all the answers, or that they 
were entirely accurate in absolutely everything. Time and the 
evolution of consciousness alone will determine this. 
And to repeat yet again, never did they demand to be believed or 
followed and to my knowledge none in this forum has suggested this 
nor that a "Blavatsky tick of approval" is required. 
Can you point out where you claim this occurred?
And even if someone has, are you not denying them the very thing you 
are demanding, equality of speech and opinion?

In a similar vein to your biblical quote, one of my favourites comes 
from Shakespeare;

"....But man, proud man, 
Drest in a little brief authority, 
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd, 
His glassy essence, like an angry ape, 
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, 
As make the angels weep...."

Kind regards
Nigel  





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel,
> To be sure it is important not to become arrogant in our 
> understanding of things and we should always be prepared to be 
> prepared to listen to others regardless of where that source maybe.
> 
> It reminds me of a passage from the book of Proverbs 3: 5 that I 
was 
> inculcated with as a child.
> 
> "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not rely on your 
> insight. In all ways acknowledge him and he will make straight your 
> paths"
> 
> This scripture can be used as an excuse for blind faith if taken I 
> would suggest in the wrong way but in the spirit of the passage it 
> speaks of wisdom and the need for humility in order to be able to 
be 
> open to spiritual influence.
> 
> The paramitas of Buddhism also establish a spiritual mode of being 
> and functioning.
> Humility is essential to develop receptivity to spiritual realities.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> >
> > The use of  "personal" experience as our ultimate determinant for 
> > that which is "right" or "wrong" can be a highly flawed process.
> > 
> > After all, how much and which part of our self makes these 
> > determinations? More often than not, isn't it our heavily 
> programmed, 
> > habit conditioned personality, founded in its inherited and 
> acquired 
> > fears, preferences, attachments and identifications? 
> > To continually insist on ourselves and our experience to be our 
> final 
> > arbiter, can in itself be just another strong dogma, one perhaps 
> > lacking humility and potentially possessing not an inconsiderable 
> > amount of fear-based pride.
> > 
> > How are we to approach the works of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr or 
> > Pauli, each giants in their field? Yes, they made mistakes, but 
are 
> > we to diminish or even devalue the profundity of their 
> pronouncements 
> > simply because we have not experienced or perhaps even understood 
> for 
> > ourselves their mental discoveries? Are we even to consider 
> ourselves 
> > on an equal footing, insisting that we will accept nothing they 
> have 
> > written and proven until we "discover" or "experience" it for 
> > ourselves?
> > 
> > Of course we need guard against blindly following another's 
> > pronouncements and we need keep open our mind for new discoveries 
> and 
> > new ways of looking at things. In potential we are told we each 
> have 
> > unlimited capacities. But let us not presume from our programmed, 
> > possibly arrogant, mundane mind that we are all equal in mental 
and 
> > spiritual functioning at this point in time.
> > 
> > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers maintained an age-old 
tradition, 
> > that of endeavouring to bring the inexpressible truths of life 
into 
> > the vernacular and mental culture of the day. We are told 
> > the "unthinkable and unspeakable" cannot be written or spoken, 
> > therefore a structure is erected by mental, and in this case, 
> > spiritual giants in an attempt to ferry us to the "other shore." 
It 
> > is available for us to accept or reject; it is for us to choose 
our 
> > direction and method; it is for us to do the paddling; it is even 
> for 
> > us to build the boat. What they have done is provide what some 
> > empiricists might consider a less than perfectly described 
> schematic, 
> > which however, with deep study and continued application might 
> become 
> > apparent to us, and which may indeed assist us in our attempts to 
> > uncover the actual process and purpose of life in this dimension 
of 
> > existence.
> > 
> > If we cannot, or do not wish to recognise that Madame Blavatsky 
and 
> > her teachers possessed extraordinary and demonstrable fore-
> knowledge, 
> > knowledge and occult abilities, then that is our choice. If we 
> choose 
> > to focus on what we believe or perceive to be shortcomings, that 
> too 
> > we are free to do. Were they absolutely accurate and correct in 
all 
> > they said and did? Are there other traditions which may work for 
> the 
> > same "type" of western-minded person? Perhaps or perhaps not, the 
> > empirical western mind's clamouring for dotted i's and crossed 
t's 
> > possibly blinding us from that which truly is. But to consider 
some 
> > of those who followed in their name to have equal credibility in 
> this 
> > field of expertise is a matter for considerable debate. To 
consider 
> > ourselves as having equal credibility, from our personal 
> experience, 
> > is perhaps just a little presumptuous?
> > 
> > Nigel C
> >
>