|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Oct 10, 1996 11:01 PM
by Maxim Osinovsky
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.