Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00253)

They have the Cosmo available online:

http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng00.htm

They have his collected works on searchable cd for $30, if you cant 
get it locally the shipping is $2. He speaks of the Elder Brothers as 
the source of his teaching, a European counterpart of HPBs Mahatmas.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> 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@...> 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]
>