Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00238)

Hi Richard
  I had not heard of Max Heindel but did a quick Yahoo search on him and see that he was a Theosophist/Rosicrucian.  I would be interested in reading his magnum opus.  Is it available on line?
   
  Cass

Richard Semock <semockr@hotmail.com> wrote:
          I experienced an instant affinity with 3 people and their teachings: 
1) Edgar Cayce who I learned about when I came across The Sleeping 
Prophet by Jess Stearn. I came across the book the month before 
getting out of the military.
2) This was followed by Max Heindel and the Cosmo Conception
3) And of course HPB & the SD

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nigel_healy" <nigelhealy@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel C,
> I think this is a very important point you make here: 
> "The use of "personal" experience as our ultimate 
> determinant for that which is "right" or "wrong" can be 
> a highly flawed process."
> 
> Cass and I have mentioned in recent postings 
> experiencing an instant affinity with particular 
> teachings/philosophies, which may be a reconnecting 
> with the Ancient Wisdom - or, indeed, may be 
> something else. It is always worth examining the nature 
> of these experiences, especially if there is an emotional 
> aspect attached to the experience. Our personality loves 
> to feel 'nice' and of course 'right' about these matters.
> Socrates was spot on when he talked about the futility 
> of the unexamined life.
> 
> Thank you Nigel for your insightful postings recently, 
> they keep one on one's toes!
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Nigel H
> 
> 
> --- 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
> >
>



                         

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]