Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00202)

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:

> >Could we please discuss the Ageless Wisdom
> >rather than perspectives on it?
>
> I think this is very difficult.  You mention the Master D.K. whose
> existence and communications are meaningful to members of the Arcane
> School and the followrs of Alice Bailey.  Many theosophists argue that
> this material is unreliable, and will not include it as part of the
> ageless wisdom.
>
> In other words, before we can even *hope* to discuss the Ageless Wisdom,
> we have to try to agree about what constitutes it.  Much discussion on
> this list has been about this controversial subject.

OK, let's not label it Ageless Wisdom and not define it, let's call it
'spiritual experience.' The best results are achieved when the mind is in
tune with the higher self and obedient to it. Then the mind does not
impose its own perspectives on the spiritual experience but rather
adjusts them as necessary for more adequate expression of the latter.

Alan, I appreciate your integrity, and what follows is not in response to
your posting,--just some stray thoughts re: general course of discussions
on theos-l.

Lack of effective communication between spiritually minded people today is
partly due to the fact that the old model of the teacher-disciple
relationship has collapsed, while the habit of spiritual discipline is
not ingrained yet. Today we have at our disposal enormous amounts of
information about yoga, etc., which perhaps entails a lot of independent
research and practice. Under these circumstances, it is tempting to skip
some 'unnecessary' preliminary stages and to go directly to 'advanced'
things. Nevertheless the old laws (not models) of the spiritual
development seem to be still valid. Indeed, it does not seem like we
have overgrown Patanjali's Yoga Sutras or Plotinus' level of
understanding. One still needs to learn spiritual lessons step by step
in their proper sequence unless one wants to be periodically thrown back
to basics. (This sequence is well known from Yoga Sutras.)

This is what happens oftentimes on theos-l. We get thrown back repeatedly
to ABC of spirituality. As a matter of fact I feel myself uncomfortable
repeating some well known things, but I am doing it because I feel we may
make some arithmetical errors while trying to solve higher-math
problems.

I wonder if we might agree on some basic things
like these: the things spiritual are not expressible in the ordinary
language; a finger pointing at the moon is not the moon; there are worlds
of form and formless realms; nothing clothed in words is true; as below
so above; and so forth. It would save our time and effort. Then we maybe
will be able to agree somewhat on such issues as evil, black magic vs.
white magic, the role of the Masters, etc.