May 30, 1998 02:57 AM
by Kym Smith
>So one is not going to be able to "imitate" the Masters of
>Wisdom. One either becomes one, or one remains in one or other
>of the lower levels of achievement.
It is then as I suspected: Judge's terminology was. . .well. . .sloppy and
thereby, misleading. Which is all right - he is human, however, too many
take writings of so-called "learned ones" as agreeable without really
analyzing the true content of it - whether it is workable or not.
>To avoid controversy is to make a statement that is reasonable,
>logical and presents the Laws one senses to be in operation, so
>that all concerned know, as exactly as one can state it, one's
Is this your personal definition of "avoiding controversy?" That's fine,
but this sounds more like a definiton for 'avoiding misunderstanding' (or
making clear your ideas) as 'controversy' means to take part in a debate
>As to "robotic exchanges," well I guess that one may interpret
>them as one chooses. I would say that it is not sentiment that
>is at stake, but knowledge.
Until one learns to handle or include the sentiments of others, that one can
never be a true teacher of "knowledge." The teacher is ignoring a good part
of the individual that is before him or her - a part that is very valuable
in guiding the student toward Truth. Humans are NOT MACHINES - and to treat
them as such is hardly compassionate and tends to cause the student to flee
to a more balanced mode of instruction.
>If you are new to Theosophy and its vistas, then
>you need to secure some view of its concepts. Do you have, or
>have you recently read THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by H.P.Blavatsky ?
Yes, I have read THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, ISIS UNVEILED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE,
THE ANCIENT WISDOM, THE MAHATMA LETTERS, OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, and other
various readings. And my interpretation of those books seems to differ from
many on this list. Go figure.
>Go to any school, any university, and you will
>find on examination, that the Professors there are investigating
>Nature, and aspects that they discover, are already embodied and
>operative in Nature. They repeat to you and me (teach) that
>which they have established to be repetitive -- to be Law, in
>some form or another. Based on partial information they also
>erect hypotheses and theories which may, or may not be, correct.
>We do not boggle over that.
Some of us "boggle" over that - assuming I know what you mean by "boggle."
>to investigate himself, and come to his own conclusions as to his condition.
There is a new movement which encourages the use of gender-inclusive
language - call it "sensitivity training." I ask and would appreciate the
use of this style language should you address any of my further posts -
"her/himself, his/her, she/he, his/her or one." It is difficult, but
advantageous to be aware of just how powerful small changes, such as gender
neutral language, - however dumb one may think them to be - aid in
>You may not be satisfied at these answers, but supposing that I
>gave you rules, rites, ceremonies and topped that off with a
>stiff fee -- would you be better satisfied ?
Uh, no. . .you can leave off the "stiff fee."
>To "avoid controversy and yet fight for the right," is in my
>esteem making a statement of the principles of which one is
>basing ones' self.
Again, your definition of "controversy" doesn't really seem to fit with this
statement. Ghandi, Schweitzer, King, Jesus, etc - were and continue to be
figures of "controversy" and they certainly seem to be fighting for what is
>said: "signify nothing."
Shakespeare gave poor Macbeth a bum rap.
Anyway, I appreciate your feedback, labyrinthine (maze-like) as it was.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application