Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00255)

Hi Dallas and all of you,

Thanks for your answer Dallas.

My views are just views:
Allright. If I understand your answer then exactitude has to do with wisdom.

Dallas wrote:
"WISDOM (in my opinion) is the capacity to answer with exactitude."

And more...

Dallas wrote:
"Again, the definition of "common sense" is left open to
> individual interpretation -- but, the IDEA of such an universally
> and impartially, as an acceptable answer, exists in most minds,
> however poorly that may be defined."

My Sufilight answer:
Allright then. I just did'nt know, what definition you had on
"common sense".

The rest of your email - I might respond to another day.
Some of it is quite good.

Yes. Let us all do good, see good, be good. Let head, heart and hands work
together caring for humanity and the eternal life.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...






----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-BN--Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:24 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: "Common sense" and "Openness" -- When is learning
not Indoctrination ?


> Wednesday, June 25, 2003
>
> Re: "Common sense" and "Openness"
>
> Dear Friend:
>
> You say:
>
> Dallas wrote:
> "Common sense" and "openness" are the characteristics of true
> Knowledge and of WISDOM.
>
> My answer:
> I disagree with that. Can you please explain how you can equate
> "Common sense" and "openness" with what you call "WISDOM" ? I
> just don't get it. Maybe some other readers care to make a remark
> on that.
>
> Anyone ?
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Dallas offers by way of answer:
>
> There are many ways of answering questions.
>
> Only one is exact, the rest have been modified in some way, and
> therefore they are only "relatively" true..
>
>
> This comment of mine can be classified with the 2nd variety -- an
> opinion, to be considered ....
>
>
> WISDOM (in my opinion) is the capacity to answer with exactitude.
>
> Also, should there be some ambiguity , the answer ought to
> include explanation, and perhaps some leads as to understanding
> broader or deeper aspects. In all cases a WISE answer disclaims
> any "authority."
>
> It recognizes that the sole authority that guides anyone is the
> INNER AUTHORITY of the SPIRITUAL SELF. (that is, the REAL MAN.
> The physical body is not the REAL MAN but only a vehicle for IT.
> The physical man is guided and directed and used by the
> indwelling Causative Force: The Mind directed by the Inner
> IMMORTAL SELF. That is, when the physical man is not so
> distorted by bad living, and false choices in the past, that
> such communication is almost impossible. The problem is to be
> found in our desires and their selfishness.)
>
> It is claimed in esotericism and occultism that this SPIRITUAL
> SELF is universal -- hence a TRUE ANSWER would be: IT is
> identical for all. IT is shared by all. The rest contain
> opinions and hence are approximate "truths."
>
> On our material plane, and dealing with the present brain-mind,
> we all have to use the "common sense" aspect of approach, which
> comes, perhaps, closest to this universal statement that common
> innate WISDOM and TRUTH demand.
>
> Again, the definition of "common sense" is left open to
> individual interpretation -- but, the IDEA of such an universally
> and impartially, as an acceptable answer, exists in most minds,
> however poorly that may be defined.
>
> As an example let's take the normal and accepted answer to the
> question: 2 x 2 = ? almost all will say " 4 " And
> superficially that is correct.
>
> However, there are those who place different values on the
> numerals or symbols chosen. Those are concealed, and perhaps,
> known only to a few -- or by some group which is studying
> concepts and using those special values. The answer so derived
> and published would appear balderdash to the average reader. But
> if one is familiar with the code chosen, it makes sense. [See,
> In ISIS UNVEILED II pp. 393 to 397, and 348, 387- 391, you will
> find an example of such a code.]
>
> As a further example: try to interpret ordinary published
> chemical formulae and equations without a well grounded knowledge
> of chemical symbols, valency, and the polarity of
> "attraction/repulsion."
> This makes the superficial answers which any one can read,
> "esoteric" or "occult." Uninterpretable without the key that a
> WISDOM in chemistry would provide..
>
> So it all comes down to how much does one know, and how much is
> agreed on, in the sharing of secret or scientific codes, and the
> use or non-use, of a jargon or language that serves as a
> short-cut in time to those who are "adepts" in specific aspects
> of philosophy, religion, and the sciences, arts, and crafts.
>
> In other words (from what little has been written on this
> subject) those who are untrained in such matters are held at bay
> until such time as they qualify by study and the passing of
> examinations.
>
> The rumors one hears about "initiation" are also an example of
> this.
>
> In the case of the one and true WISDOM, (which I presume to be
> the secrets of Nature) this is shown to be after it is thoroughly
> studied and progressively revealed, but, only to those who prove
> to be absolutely harmless, totally unselfish, and morally fit.
> Nature as a whole is the Master MAGICIAN.
>
> Nature (Deity incarnate in and through the whole Universe -- not
> a "Personal God") sets these criteria, and makes them absolute
> barriers. These are some of these doctrines: of the 7-fold
> nature of the Universe and Man (see S D II 596, I 157), Karma,
> Total Evolution, the immorality of the SPIRIT-SOUL, the
> reincarnation process, the eternal cycles of life and death, and
> continual change, the imperishable and inobliterable records of
> Karma in the Akas, etc... are aspects of this wisdom interior to
> Nature that far surpasses the materialistic discoveries of our
> present day Science -- which takes into account (and still
> fragmentarily, as it does not recognise the prevalence of the
> Astral) only one of the 7 aspects..
>
> The main point boils down to morality and ethics, since WISDOM is
> often abused and made subservient to personal and evil methods
> that are harmful to others, a knowledge of IT is only entrusted
> to those "worthy" of it -- and this takes lives of study and
> careful testing and application to ding good for others.
> Persistence, devotion, discrimination and selflessness are the
> primary requirements. These are pretty strict and demanding
> requirements. There are NO SHORT-CUTS.
>
> Of course if it were not possible to distort WISDOM and make
> evil of it, by the perversion of man's nature from Noble
> (Universal, impersonal, compassionate, unselfish...) to base
> (selfish desires, emotions and passions...), there would be no
> problem.
>
> One of the crucial and essential parts of evolution is the
> recognition and conviction of the BROTHERHOOD of all beings and
> of all Mankind. This alone makes sin and evil impossible.
>
> I hope this proves to be helpful,
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
>
> ============================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mort
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:49 AM
> To:
> Subject: "Wisdom, Openness," and "common sense" : When is
> learning not Indoctrination ?
>
>
> ====================
>
> Hi Dallas and all of you,
>
> I enjoyed your email. Thanks for that Dallas !
>
> In general I agree a lot with its content.
>
> But, but...
>
> Dallas wrote:
>
> "Common sense" and "openness" are the characteristics of true
> Knowledge and of
> WISDOM.
>
> My Sufilight answer:
>
> I disagree with that. Can you please explain how you
> can equate "Common sense" and "openness" with what you call
> "WISDOM" ?
> I just don't get it. Maybe some other readers care to make a
> remark on that.
> Anyone ?
>
>
> CUT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>