Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tl00014)

At 11:30 AM 3/5/1999 +0000, you wrote:

 Dallas responds:
 Dear Grigor:
 If the desire to teach is to secure "personal 
recognition," you
 would be certainly right in characterizing the motive as selfish,
 and as directing attention to ones' self as an "authority."

 There is, of course, need for great discrimination, as all
 knowledge is not for those who are ethically known to be
 unworthy."  I mean to stress the idea of "ethically," because
 there is always the potential for a person to selfishly abuse
 knowledge.  And if a teacher unwisely gives information, the
 moral burden descends on that "teacher" who so unwisely gives
 information to the "wrong" person.

I do have a problem with that argument. I have heard it 
befor: it is one of the arguments for secrecy in the E.S.. 
My objection to the idea is that the information involved 
is not really ours in the sense that we could have 
discovered it ourselves. We were given the information by 
H.P.B. and others and then extract those portions that we 
understand. If we suppose (which is most likely) that we 
are not so different from our fellowmen/women, morally 
speaking, then why should we try and judge wether or not 
they are morally ready to receive the information.

Aside from that: mostly people are not ready even to 
think/contemplate these issue's to the degree that 
'theosophists' do. So usually judging wether or not someone 
is morally ready or not is not relevant in my oppinion. 

Katinka

=====================
Real spiritual knowledge, in my opinion, has to be "experienced" and not
given or taught. If something can be taught, it can be put down in writing
or in video. 

What one person can teach another are some physical techniques.

This moral issue varies very widely based on person to person.

Again, in the famous 1900 letter from KH, much of the critical parts were
withheld from members for a long time, the Adept was very clear on the
issue of who can be admitted to esoteric section.

mkr