Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00106)

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Dear Reed:

The only thing I wish to make clear is that I did not intend to
be critical of you.

I am always wary of translations. I cannot guarantee the
accuracy or the context of the saying attributed to Jesus.

However we do know that he was an adept of the Great Lodge, who,
according to the Masters took on the burden of an almost futile
attempt to reform the Jews. Since then the "Gentiles" took over
his reform, and as H. P. Blavatsky says combined the work and
sayings of several Adepts and attributed those to Him. (ISIS
UNVEILED gives instances).

It is also said that he studied under Buddhis Monks who had a
vihara on the banks of the Dead Sea, then went to Egypt where the
ancient teachings were the subject of his study.

If we turn to the VOICE OF THE SILENCE we may find similar
concepts:

Look at p. 16 in the VOICE OF THE SILENCE where you will read
that we are to "kill" desire, love of life, -- p. 17 "strangle
thy sins" -- p. 41 where at the bottom we are asked to "slay"
desire and even the knowledge of desire. -- see also p. 13: we
are asked to "kill" our unclean thoughts. The "self of Matter"
has to "disappear."

In other words it is the Lower Self that has to be treated as an
enemy and subdued. One may find this harsh as it is our friend
and we live in it when awake. However if it were allowed to run
wild, would it not end harming itself? So control is indicated.
What does this ? BUDDHI-MANAS -- the Wise Mind. I think there
is a reconciliation in this. (see p. 41 on "restraint")
P 44 refers to "self immolation" and to sacrificing the Mutable
(Kama-manas) to the Permanent (BUDDHI-MANAS). Pp. 67-8 also
refers to this using the mango fruit as an illustration.

There are mental swords and physical ones. All action stats with
desire and then the mind using its discrimination makes plan to
either discard the desire or to implement it. How does one know
the best to do? Are there not indications of vast, impartial and
universal laws that lead to the progress and harmony of the
whole? Would we not benefit ourselves, as well as humanity if we
use those while restraining the discordances and disruptions of
unregulated desire ?
See if this is satisfactory
Dal

=========================


Perhaps this makes it a little clearer ?


-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [mailto:reed3@blavatsky.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 7:49 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] Jesus required swords


Dallas,

I have not been able to send email for a few days so I have been
late in
responding to you.

You have misunderstood me.

Fundamentally, I think you should not have been so critical of me
because I
think you are in agreement with me!!

The only point of personal opinion that I offered was that the
sell-cloak-for-sword mandate was difficult to reconcile with the
turn-other-cheek maxim. I presume you certainly agree with that!
You do
agree with me they are difficult to reconcile don't you?

I can understand you found the sword remark disagreeable. I
think your
response was to shoot the messenger that pointed out the quote -
in this case
me. In general though shooting the messenger is not a reasonable
response.

Instead could you address how to resolve the dilema.

There was an implicit question in my letter. Namely: how do YOU
reconcile
these two alledged quotes of Jesus? How do you?

Reed

---
You are currently subscribed to bn-study as:
[dalval14@earthlink.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-study-7384944T@lists.lyris.net