Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00239)

Are you saying that prior to the crucifixion of christ (personally don't believe it happened) man did not have access to his higher self?    There were many great souls who achieved this centuries before Christ.
   
  Cass

Richard Semock <semockr@hotmail.com> wrote:
          My response to the dessemination of knowledge or better yet, wisdom, 
is that when Christ or God the Son died on the cross, it is said that 
the curtain in the temple was torn at the exact moment of his death. 

This was the curtain that separated the Holy of Holys from the outer 
world. Symbolically or in fact, this meant that mankind in general 
now had access to God the Father and could approach that presence as 
individuals no longer needing a middleman.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> A recent post I received on another forum prompted me to relook at 
Gurdgieff/Ouspensky teachings, and I found the following to be 
insightful.
> 
> Gurdgieff starts by saying that if knowledge is given to a lot of 
people, the knowledge is spread too thinly and no one benefits. "If 
knowledge is given to all, nobody will get any. If it is preserved 
among a few, each will receive not only enought to keep, but to 
increase, what he receives. At first glance this theory seems very 
unjust, since the position of those who are, so to speak, denied 
knowledge in order that others receive a greater sharea appears to be 
very sad and undeservedly harder than it ought to be. Actually, 
however this is not so at all; and in the distribution of knowledge 
there is not the slightest injustice."
> 
> "the fact is that the enormous majority of people do not want any 
knowledge whatsoever, they refuse their share of it and do not even 
take the the ration alloted to them, in the general distribution, for 
the purposes of life. This is particularly evident in times of mass 
madness such as wars, revolutions, and so on, when men suddenly seem 
to lose even the small amount of common sense they had and turn into 
complete automatons, giving themselves over to wholesale destruction 
in vast numbers, in other words even losing the instinct of self 
preservation. Owing to this, enormous quantities of knowledge 
remain, so to speak, unclaimed and can be distributed among those who 
realize its value. "
> 
> "There is nothing unjust in this, because those who receive 
knowledge take nothing that belongs to others, deprive others of 
nothing; they take only what others have rejected as useless and what 
would in any case be lost if they did not take it."
> 
> "There are periods in the life of humanity, which generally 
coincide with the beginning of the fall of cultures and 
civilizations, when the masses irretrievably lose their reason and 
begin to destroy everything that has been created by centuries and 
millenniums of culture. Such periods of mass madness, often 
coinciding with geoogical cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar 
phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity of 
the matter of knowledge. Thus the work of collecting scattered 
matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the 
destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations."
> 
> 
> 
> Cass: Those that are developing at the same time, their three 
lower bodies, physical, astral and mental through their Master 
consciousness (4th Body Causal) the knowledge, although the same, is 
viewed from a totally different aspect. So in effect, knowledge or 
truth is different for each man, and perhaps those who are developing 
their Master consciousness (an individuality dominating the physical 
body and its desires)intuit the teaching as a personal truth for 
themselves. Those that operate through the lower bodies, the 
personality (discordant and contradictory) will of course have a 
different slant on it. I am just musing here, and my intention is 
not to divide into "them" and 'Us" but Christianity would not have 
been able to get such a grip on Monads that were operating through 
their own individual "I" Master. different from the Man who functions 
through his lower three bodies. "On the fourth way a man must 
satisfy himself of the truth of what he is told. And
> until he is satisfied he must do nothing.
> 
> In conclusion, "Those who possess this knowledge are doing 
everything they can to transmit and communicate it to the greatest 
possible number of people, to facilitate people's approach to it and 
enable them to prepare themselves to receive the truth.
> 
> Looking forward to responses.
> 
> Cass
> 
> igel_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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! 
Search.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



                         

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

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