|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Oct 11, 1996 01:04 PM
by Bee Brown
At 03:37 AM 11/10/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >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. > Good point. I have felt this way for a long time and have only just found a way of getting on top of this, IMO. I found the General Semantic Institute's web page and I am also reading the book by the father to G-S Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, published in 1933. It is not too hard to read and it sure does throw much light on the way we communicate.He was an engineer and mathmatician who was concerned about the confused thinking this world shows and some of his theories are very good. One of it's main themes is non-identity and that the map is not the territory. I have also found their g-s discussion list and I have learned a lot about the way I identify with words and symbols that actually have no factual reality and get annoyed with things people say mainly because I have chosen to identify certain emotions with those words. Talking about spiritual things can get into difficulty because we abstract from an esoteric fact and end up with our own preferences attached to the symbol we have used to express our interpretation of that fact. I have found g-s, so far, to hold many similarities to Buddhist precepts e.g detachment, etc. If Theosophists learned to communicate in more real semantic terms, we could have some interesting insights instead of emotional arguements :-) I don't mean to be rude but listening to this list and the way discussions are structured and listening to the g-s list, shows up quite a difference in methods of resolving differences. I will leave now before I get into hot water :-( Love you all regardless. Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. Success is getting what you want. Happiness is liking what you get.