Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00262)

Kym:
>Excuse me, but you are the one who suggested that reverence entails
>"greatness."  Hence, YOUR quote: "We can only rever one who greater than
>ourselves and who can abide that thought of being inferior nowadays."  You
>said we can "only rever one who is greater."  Note your use of the term
>"only."  Yet, now you are saying, in your current post that this is not the
>case.  Please clarify.

N:
Greatness or superiority can easily be seen or noticed.  Many folks are
superior (spiritually and otherwise) in many ways to me. But that produces
in me no *guarantee* of awe, reverence or devotion. On the other hand
when reverence or devotion arises in me towards someone that does
*guarantee* their superiority in nobility -- their greatness -- and my lack.

N.
>>Surely in nature you have stumbled upon a beauteous
>>vista that caused awe to arise spontaneously within you?

K:
>Of course!  But this is not the point of the original post for nature is
>not a "who."  I was under the impression you were talking about people -
>that some people (HPB perhaps) should be and, yet, are not being revered
>for their "greatness."

N:
I don't save posts for too long. I thought there was a non-people word in
it.  In any case, the notion I was trying to convey is that reverence is
an innate, spontaneous, unplanned, arising of a sublime feeling.  Devotion
does not arise (and would be quashed) by calculating the greatness first
or comparing little me to great him and then expecting genuine devotion to
spring up in the heart.

Nature does not exclude humans (although it might wish to) does it?

--
<> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles
	"Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it."
		Blavatsky