|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Oct 11, 1996 03:16 PM
by Dr. A.M.Bain
In message <Pine.OSF.3.90.961010220918.5484C- email@example.com>, Maxim Osinovsky <firstname.lastname@example.org .edu> writes > >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, .. or been superseded. > while the habit of spiritual discipline is >not ingrained yet. Do you thing we really need "ingrained habits" - suppose we get it wrong? There would be a great amount of repair work to do, even supposing that we recognised an error was present tobegin witn. > 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. This has probably always been the case, regardless of the method of teaching or the teacher involved. > 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.) Yes, that is probably true in broad terms; and it can be verified empirically by each ine of us as we travel on our individual journeys. >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, They may not be well known to everyone who drops by on the list. People come and go, though there are a few of us who doggedly persist in hanging around to put our 2 cents' worth in. ..snip... > >I wonder if we might agree on some basic things >like these: the things spiritual are not expressible in the ordinary >language; Some are, some aren't. > a finger pointing at the moon is not the moon; there are worlds >of form and formless realms; nothing clothed in words is true; All the Teaching has ever done is point the way, if that is what you mean. The same is true of teachers, who cannot do their students' work *for* them. > as below >so above; and so forth. A point of order for clarification here, as this idea is so often misquoted. "That which is above is like unto that which is below" is a slightly archaic approximation of the original aphorism. "Like unto it" - not the same as it. > 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, I do not see these as *versus* each other: to take such a view, IMO, leads to a kind of evil in itself by setting up a confontational model (or paradigm if you want to talk posh) when we would surely be better of by seeking the middle way. > the role of the Masters, etc. Define "Masters" - I have an item on this among my web stuff somewhere. Making progress .... Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk, and from homepage above.