Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00236)

Hi Katinka and all of you,

I agree.
And if Bart Lidofsky reads this.

I agree with the following quote from
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/th-bowen.htm contains of learning:

"First of all then, "The Secret Doctrine" is only quite a small fragment of
the Esoteric Doctrine known to the higher members of the Occult
Brotherhoods. It contains, she says, just as much as can be received by the
World during this coming century. This raised a question -- which she
explained in the following way: -- 

"The World" means Man living in the Personal Nature. This "World" will find
in the two volumes of the S.D. all its utmost comprehension can grasp, but
no more. But this is not to say that the Disciple who is not living in "The
World" cannot find any more in the book than the "World" finds. Every form,
no matter how crude, contains the image of its "creator" concealed within
it. So likewise does an author's work, no matter how obscure, contain the
concealed image of the author's knowledge. [3] From this saying I take it
that the S.D. must contain all that H.P. Blavatsky. knows herself, and a
great deal more than that, seeing that much of it comes from men whose
knowledge is immensely wider than hers. Furthermore, she implies
unmistakably that another may well find knowledge in it which she does not
possess herself. It is a stimulating thought to consider that it is possible
that I myself may find in H.P.B.'s words knowledge of which she herself is
unconscious. She dwelt on this idea a good deal. X said afterwards: "H.P.
Blavatsky. must be losing her grip," meaning, I suppose, confidence in her
own knowledge. But ---- and ---- and myself also, see her meaning better, I
think. She is telling us without a doubt not to anchor ourselves to her as
the final authority, nor to anyone else, but to depend altogether upon our
own widening perceptions. "

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:12 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: When is learning not Indoctrination ?


> Hi Sufilight,
>
> You may be interested to hear that in the below you echo the Bowen
> Notes whose historical background is at present being contested.
>
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/th-bowen.htm
>
> Katinka
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
>
> > Indoctrination may be called 'the instilling of attitudes without
> > the saving grace of digesting them'. Indoctrination is not what
> > some people claim, that is to say the more rapid accomplishment
> > of something which ordinarily takes a culture many years to
> > achive.
> > What makes a 'digested' system more acceptable than an
> > imposed one ?
> > Two things. First a greater time-scale and conditions of
> > freedom give an opportunity for rejection. Second, where there
> > is a time-scale measured in years - and where there is oppor-
> > tunity for dissent and discussion, there is room for modification.
> > Inducing people to believe things - and the, usually, turning
> > around and saying that this belief, because it is belief, is sacred
> or
> > even inevitable - is the hallmark of indoctrination.
> > Putting forward, and giving people information which
> > enables them to test these (including testing then against other
> > ideas) spells freedom and education, both of which are distorted
> > or abolished by indoctrinatior.
> > Two things prevent the foregoing being widely known at the present
> > time: -
> >
> > 1. The discovery, certainly in the 'West' and modern world, is
> > recent. I will take time to percolate.
> > 2. When the facts are presented, they are an embarrassment to
> > those who, examining their own attitudes, realise that,
> > in certain areas, they are themselves victims of
> > indoctrination.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>