Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00221)

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
>