Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00302)

Hi Dallas,

I put to your consideration the following words by Koot Hoomi Lal 
Singh:

>> (1) An adept — the highest as the lowest — is one only during the 
exercise of his occult powers.>>

and 
>> When the inner man rests the adept becomes an ordinary man, 
limited to his physical senses and the functions of his physical 
brain. Habit sharpens the intuition of the latter, yet is unable to 
make them supersensuous. The inner adept is ever ready, ever on the 
alert, and that suffices for our purposes. At moments of rest then, 
his faculties are at rest also. >>

and
>>Couple this with the unpleasant fact that we are forbidden to use 
one particle of our powers in connexion with the Eclectics >>

>From letter 24b (old order) or 85b chronological. Copied from the cd-
rom. 

If that is so, then they are likely to be at fault, in the case of 
details. And unfortunately, what we consider important, or mere 
detail, is likely to be different from what they considered important 
or detail. 

In short: the material provided by Mahatmas and Blavatsky is in the 
same position as every other piece of food put before us by a good 
cook: edible and usefull untill proven to be unhealthy or spoilt. And 
where different spiritual teachers agree - they are more likely to 
have gotten it right. So that I would say - we should sample 
different spiritual teachings in order to be able to judge correctly. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "dalval14" <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> In what light ought we regard the words and teachings of Masters,
> H P B, and others who show by their capacity the ability to
> adhere strictly to the ORIGINAL MESSAGE ? [We assume those
> "words" have reached us 'unaltered.']
> 
> We may take their words as models, or as mnemonics (ideas to be
> kept constantly in mind) but the further work, as you rightly say
> is ACTION. How do we practice wisdom ?