Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00590)

Jerry Challenges Dallas but What does Jerry Offer as an Alternative?

> >[Dallas]Every ancient esoteric school, including Theosophy states that
> >moral refinement and universalizing our perception (brotherhood
> >in actuality) are the real tools.
> >
>
> [Jerry] I seriously challenge you on this one. This is a typical Theosophical
> statement that just isn't true. Tools, perhaps. But "real" tools implies
> the only ones or best ones, and I doubt that. As a matter of fact, it
> is Theosophy's emphasis on ethics and morals as a first step along
> the Path that drew me into it. I have not found that idea elsewhere.

Jerry, what "tools" do you advocate that are "better"?

> >[Dallas] If we insist on being selfish, if we insist on securing a key to
> >"sudden enlightenment" -- as the Chinese peasant did when he
> >suddenly remembered the wisdom he had acquired in his past lives,
> >and brought it into being when he heard the verses from the
> >"Diamond sutra," [ and that experience appears chronologically,
> >to have antedated the Buddha ! ] we are going to be disappointed.
> >
>
> [Jerry] Why so? I guarantee that without expectation, nothing will happen.
> It has been my experience that storming the Gates of Heaven is
> the only real way to get anywhere. The Path as espoused by HPB
> and other Theosophical writers is a long slow safe path that I have
> doubts will take one very far, though I could be wrong. All I can really
> say is that it didn't work for me. I stormed the gates, and am
> currently working out my own salvation thank you very much.

So Jerry, you didn't take the "long slow safe path". What path did you
take and what worked for you?

>
>[Jerry] Your idea here is good, but unworkable. The Dali Lama et al had
> gurus who knew what they were talking about. The modern
> Theosophical movement has no living gurus today, that I know of.
> All we have are writings, and they are all subject to interpretation
> and are exoteric mind-brain-knowledge stuff anyway.

Well? What does one do if "all we have are writings"? What are
the alternatives that you advocate?

Just "exoteric mind-brain-knowledge stuff"??? Well, what else
could they be? But what are the implications of your observations?
What would you suggest that we do?

I personally have found these writings to be "entry ways" to
deeper realities. One day about a year ago, I was pondering
on a page of the S.D. where Thor's hammer is mentioned.
In my full waking consciousness and with my eyes wide open
Mjolner (many different spellings) the hammer manifested itself
to my perception. "It" was like a motion of many, blinding lights of
tremendous energy and power. It invoked in me an expanded
awareness and a surge of bliss consciousness flowed through
me. A certain kind of "knowledge" was "communicated"
in this manifestation. This is an *extreme* example but not the
only one I could cite.

This experience may have been merely a psychic phenomenon or some sort
of kriyashakti, nevertheless it was very uplifting and
was anything BUT "exoteric mind-brain knowledge stuff."

Again you write that "the modern
Theosophical movement has no living gurus today. . . ."

How do you know that? Need they appear before you in
the physical?

> [Jerry] I would challenge anyone to find enlightenment from following
> these, or any other, such rules. They set forth a groundwork of
> sorts, but thats about all. Rules such as those of HPB are fine in
> a monastic setting which includes knowledgable gurus. They
> mean little in today's world. They have certainly not helped me
> much. I doubt that they would help you. Have you tried them?
> Did they enlighten you at all? Did your following them help
> humanity at all?

Well, if these "rules" didn't help you much, what did?

> [Jerry] Again, I challenge this kind of statement. The core teachings, if
> you will, provide a heady theoretical framework from which to
> tread a spiritual path, but provide almost nothing about technique
> that we in the modern West can use to tread that path. Maybe
> it all comes down to motive and goal? What is our real goal
> here? Is it to be the bodhisattva? Or is it to be an enlightened
> Buddha? My own feeling on this is that it is highly personal and
> should remain a secret within each person.
>

What techniques do you advocate instead of the "heady theoretical
framework" of theosophy?

> [Jerry] This is condescending Dallas, and I am surprised at you. BTW,
> I challange your last idea that self-discipline is "first needed"
> etc. Its certainly a safer approach, but hardly a necessary one.

Well, if self-discipline is "hardly a necessary one", what do
you suggest or advocate in its place?