Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00077)

Bee:

>Hi Eldon,
>Many thanks for your comments on going beyond words when reading. This has
>clarified something that has bothered me for a long time. Other people can
>quote passages from books they have read and sound so intellegent. I have
>read thousands of books but in the fashion that you describe so that to
>quote anything I have to find the book and check out the actual words, yet I
>know what the book was about in my own terms. I discovered accidentally a
>few years ago that I read in that way when I decided that Martin Bubers 'I
>and Thou' had something in it I wanted to know. I began to read and it was
>like a brick wall when I looked at the words. No comprehension at all but I
>struggled on and then suddenly I found I read the book and knew what he
>meant yet the words themselves were as uncomprehensive as before. It then
>seemed to become my way of reading. So the idea is to speak about what has
>become solid knowledge within one's own reality and speculate about what
>hasn't made itself at home yet.

I've personally come to see this approach from my study of Purucker. Some
of his books are actually a collection of lectures, various series of
advanced study classes held in estoeric groups at Point Loma. ("Fundamentals
of the Estoeric Philosophy" is one such book.) It's rather difficult to
describe this approach, because it's possible to confuse it with subjectivity
personal opinion, when it rather deals with an further, more advanced step
in study than the traditional intellectual study. When we learn to make
the writings a part of our lives, we're not actually trying to leave our
bodies and have experiences of other worlds. (Not, at least, until we reach
a quite advance state in our spiritual development, and are under the training
of some Teacher.) We're rather training ourselves in a second form of knowing.
Traditional experience and knowledge corresponds to the sense of touch, where
we "go there and do it." This second form allows is to "see there and know it,"
and it corresponds to the sense of sight. Behind a particular author, and
behinds certain schools of thought, there are what might be called "thought
currents," and we can be in touch with them as a source of learning and
knowledge. This is what we "see" behind certain of our deeper books.

>It also seem easier to remain detached over
>what is really 'known' that what is tentative. If my 'known' is still in the
>tentative stage, it is then also insecurely attached to the body of
>knowledge that is trying to incorporate it. We can then get feelings of
>various kinds if someone questions the validity of this insecure knowledge.

There's a sense of when something is solidly a part of our mind, when it is
genuinely part of ourselves and shareable. It is then "objective truth"? No.
There may be greater things for us to learn, that would gradually cause us
to learn and grow in different directions, gradually leaving behind what we
thought we knew. But what is solidly part of us at this moment of time, as
contrasted with tentative ideas and feelings that we have considered but
not assimilated, we can share. We're ready to make a gift to the world of
what is truly part of ourselves, and that includes our deeper learning. It's
just a matter of distinguishing the "true part" from the transitory. But we
have a feeling of genuineness when we share that true part, a feeling we
don't get otherwise.

>Oh, well, what is they say,
>He who knows not, says a lot
>He who knows, says nothing.
>Much food for thought. Thank you all for your enlightening comments on the
>various topics. Hope you realise that I print some of them off for posterity
>so that I can refer to the horse's mouth if I have to.

It may be more a matter of approach. Perhaps I'm taking an approach in
some of my writings that is more useful to people than a confrontational
approach, that seeks to tear down ideas I dislike. Perhaps there's a wealth
of useful ideas and insights available to us, things we can readily appreciate
when written for us the right way.

-- Eldon