Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00242)

Dear Perry

Thank you for your reply.

Your write," I would still suggest that we can find wisdom of equal 
value outside of Blavatsky and the Mahatma letters, this is my main 
point."  

Yes I do understand your point, you have made it many times before. 

Your statements imply that someone here is suggesting otherwise. 

I have not heard anyone in this forum state that the "tick of 
approval", as you put it,  is required from Madame Blavatsky or her 
teachers when considering matters of wisdom. 

So, as in my last posting to you I ask again, can you point out where 
you claim this has occurred?

Kind regards
Nigel   



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel,
> 
> I think we agree in spirit, however I would still suggest that we 
can 
> find wisdom of equal value outside of Blavatsky and the Mahatma 
> letters, this is my main point.
> Another good quotation is St Pauls advise:
> 
> "So, people who think they are standing firmly should be careful 
that 
> they don't fall."
> 
> I always liked this one.
> 
> Best Wishes 
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>