Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00244)

Hi Nigel,
My initial comments were in relation to this article.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/psychicversusinitiate.htm
I made no claim or accusation but was pointing out what I found 
potentially problematic with it.

Regards

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> wrote:
>
> 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>