Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00258)

Dear Perry

Thank you for answering my question and for your explanation. Much 
appreciated.

You write, "Surely it is wiser to study the ideas of Buddhism, 
Vedanta or
Kabbalah etc. on their own merits rather than having to get the
little Blavatsky tick of approval next to it."

I still don't understand what you mean by this "little tick of 
approval." It simply sounds a little sarcastic and devaluing to me, 
but perhaps only to me.

As demonstrated in an earlier posting, Madame Blavatsky and her 
teachers brought a quite specific body of teachings to be shared with 
the Western world.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/41244
 
You are aware that there are certain aspects of their version of 
Theosophy, which do not concur with Buddhist philosophy whilst doing 
so with Vedanta. On the other hand there are aspects of Vedanta, 
which are not supported by Buddhism and only partly by Theosophy. 
Moreover, at a deeper level, Theosophy coalesces certain teachings of 
both Buddhism and Vedanta. 

Whilst acknowledging the value of studying these other teachings, why 
would it be "wiser to study the ideas of Buddhism, Vedanta or 
Kabbalah etc. on their own merits rather than having to get the 
little Blavatsky tick of approval next to it"?

Surely, in a theosophical discussion group, some here might be 
interested and have a right to hear a theosophical or Theosophical 
perspective of these philosophies?  

Kind regards
Nigel  



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>
> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>