Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Is Blavatasky time-appropriate?

Expand Messages
  • dalval14@earthlink.net
    Jan 9 2003 Dear Friend: Baraka I understand -- the force of the PRESENCE. -- and the appropriate way in which a special situation is handled. And this is no
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 9, 2003
      Jan 9 2003

      Dear Friend:

      Baraka I understand -- the force of the PRESENCE. -- and the
      appropriate way in which a special situation is handled. And this is
      no longer apparent after time has passed. Only the words remain and
      become subject to opinion and interpretation. This is the fate of all
      creeds.

      As an avowed "eternalist" I look for, and to, those fundamental
      concepts that underlie or persist -- and to those I apply the term:
      LAW and Laws. Our world and universe are full of those. Some may
      consider some of the following to be metaphysics.

      I also call them "eternal verities." To me they provide me with the
      needed logical links that bind
      our transient "present" with the "past." The nebulous future is then
      seen to develop out of these two and the free power to choose
      exercised by every member of humanity.

      As far as I can determine this "past" is unalterable, although
      opinions concerning it vary greatly.

      I do not think we can "interfere" with any one's belief system. There
      are certain elements of any "belief system" that are true and
      UNIVERSAL and there are usually many errors and misconceptions. To
      clear these away would be beneficial to all. But it is also agree
      that this may be a very painful process. That, to me, is why
      "beliefs" are dangerous. They are something less than TRUTH.

      Theosophy has exposed me to some basic and universal principles -- and
      I have admittedly to modify any of my belief systems if they prove
      inaccurate and untrustworthy.


      a theosophist should not belong to any organization. Labels are
      always faulty as the individual always stands alone.

      If you (or I, or any one) has studied THEOSOPHY as a system, and know
      it. then we may be able to determine if all known laws and factors
      apply to a problem. No one is going, if a true "Theosopher" to accept
      blindly anything. [Theosopher = lover of Divine Truth]

      Verification is independent of any "label" it is an independent
      process of seeing if any statement is true and based on universal
      fundamentals. There is of course trouble deterring those. Hence in
      the SECRET DOCTRINE, Mme. H. P. Blavatsky established the ancient ones
      (see pp 14 -19 Vol. I) The system named THEOSOPHY cannot be grasped
      unless those are employed.

      It is by cross questioning one-another that verities and truths can be
      defined for mutual use in discussion.

      These are a few of the fundamentals I consider all the time:

      1 SPIRIT Universal Impartite Fundamental Eternal
      Ethical Verities.

      2 MATTER A Modified Aspect Of Spirit Infinitely Small Yet Is
      Inseparable From Spirit -- the theory of universal Monads -- Living
      Units, perpetually in motion. Also Eternal.

      3. MIND A vehicle (or comparative position) mid-way between
      Spirit and Matter which is INTELLIGENT CONSCIOUS and is therefore
      dual : 1 Spiritual-Mind, and, 2. Material-mind. Each Monad to
      be viewed as an Eternal Pilgrim -- an intelligence wending its way
      towards complete Knowledge (or WISDOM). The Monad is free-willed, and
      always has the power to choose.

      4. EVOLUTION A process of progressive experiences under
      immutable law and through re-embodiment ( reincarnation).

      5. LAW universally present, so as to create an environment in
      which there is an harmony of diversities. Nothing is superfluous or
      to be left out of the scheme.

      6. REINCARNATION A process of re-embodiment whereby
      intelligence, consciousness and character are perpetuated and carried
      forward.

      7. CAUSE and BASIC REASON for this ? Now that is a mystery. We
      see the progress but the beginning (as also the end) are obscure.

      8 GOOD is that action or choice which harmonizes with universal
      LAW. EVIL is that which breaks or distorts LAW.

      See if these resonate .

      Best wishes,

      Dal

      ====================


      -----Original Message-----
      From: wry
      Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:37 PM
      To:
      Subject: Is Blavatsky time-appropriate?

      Hi Dallas. It seems you are having difficulty grasping the concept
      that every great teaching that has ever been presented to humanity is
      always presented in a way that is appropriate to the specific needs of
      specific people AT A SPECIFIC TIME. In the Middle East, the specific
      force a teaching carries to affect people is called "baraka." After a
      while all teachings lose their baraka, and with it a certain kind of
      life, as knowledge needs to be presented in different ways according
      to which knowledge has already been presented, the form in which it
      has been presented, and the manner in which people have (or have not)
      been affected by this).

      This is a simple enough concept to grasp and it makes perfect sense.
      The reason you may be having difficulty with this is that you are what
      I would call an eternalist. This means that you see certain aspects of
      the universe as existing externally to and independent of yourself and
      this also implies not only that you believe yourself to exist on your
      own side, as an independent entity, but also that "knowledge" exists
      independently from its own side. It is your right to believe anything
      you want, and I would not want to take this away from you. In the
      beginning I thought that you were a representative of the views of
      theosophy (as in all truth, this is how you present yourself, whether
      you will honestly acknowledge it or not), and I did not want to speak
      openly, as it is not my aim, and even against my moral principles, to
      interfere with a group of people and their belief system, but I am
      starting to understand that many theosophists have a view that is a
      little less broad or even a little more broad than your own, and that
      I may even qualify to be a theosophist myself, so I am now beginning
      to see it as maybe a duty to do my part to establish the spirit of
      genuine enquiry, and not be shy, as ultimately, this will benefit us
      all.

      In all truth, there is a kind of static quality to an eternalistic
      viewpoint that would contribute to the illusion that knowledge exists
      externally and eternally on its own side and that it can all be laid
      out once and for all in a form that can be given and received. The
      proof IS in the pudding, but after a while, the old pudding will
      spoil. (If you look at the pudding as life itself, life will not
      spoil, but to me, making pudding symbolizes making something active
      out of life and sharing that nourishing food with others in such a way
      that they can consciously, and not mechanically, partake.. It is
      necessary to make new pudding all the time, whether you like it or
      not. There are many different approaches to making pudding. Some
      pudding is too sweet. Some is too bitter. Some pudding is essentially
      nourishing, while other pudding is not. In my opinion, for a pudding
      to be complete, the ingredients in it need to be of the finest quality
      and also WELL-BALANCED, each ingredient in relationship to the others
      IN THE PROPER PROPORTION, but I will stop here, as maybe this analogy
      can only be carried so far,

      What was the aim of Madame Blavatsky when she designed her material in
      a certain configuration? I believe it was to affect human society in a
      certain way, and she has done so. If she were alive today, do she
      think she would write the same books? That is ridiculous, as she has
      already done so, and the material has been released and disseminated,
      and, as happens with all material over time, its original baraka has
      to one degree or another been greatly depleted. This is not bad or
      good, but it a natural and a law, and unless this is taken into active
      consideration, this teaching will no longer continue to exert the
      influence it was originally designed to have.

      You have spoken a lot about "verification," and this is somewhat
      problematic to me. I am not saying that you are necessarily doing so,
      but it is easy to give lip-service to this concept without
      understanding the nature of what verification is and how to verify in
      such a way that belief and the building of a house upon the false sand
      of ones conditioning does not enter into the picture. In order for
      verification to be scrupulous certain guidelines and conditions for
      verifying may need to be presented, not as authority, but as a helping
      model, so that we will not innocently deceive ourselves into further
      stupor. Maybe we can all work together and enquire into this subject.
      I will have more comments to make on your material, which is helping
      me to clarify my own understanding, in the future. Not necessarily
      only one person may be capable of helping to reshape theosophy in
      such a way that it can (continue to) be a powerful force and help many
      people. There may be more than one, but when we make a certain kind
      and quality of pudding, we might need to start with a kitchen that is
      clean, uncluttered and well organized, well lighted and spacious, with
      plenty of fresh air and with people who not only know how to do a
      certain task independently but are also able to come together as a
      team and do a joint project that is of SIGNIFICANT value in such a
      way that an end result that is very difficult, or even almost
      impossible to achieve, is actually accomplished. Sincerely, Wry


      CUT
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.