Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00883)

Pedro you wrote:

===================================================
If we take any teaching as final and absolute we 
stultify our inquiry and our capacity to learn more 
about life and about ourselves.
==================================================

Pedro, who wrote that we should take any teaching
as "final" or "absolute"??? 

But maybe a teaching is reliable and correct as 
given. Why must there always be something more?

Maybe there is in some cases, in other cases maybe not.

Would you consider the following statements by Master K.H.
as "final" or "absolute"?? Had you been corresponding
with KH would you have taken issue with these statements and
wrote:

If we take any teaching as final and absolute we 
stultify our inquiry and our capacity to learn more 
about life and about ourselves.

????

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

Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for 
it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth.

Were we to admit that even the highest Dyan Chohans are liable to err 
under a delusion, then there would be no reality for us indeed and 
the occult sciences would be as great a chimera as that God. 

We do not bow our heads in the dust before the mystery of mind -- for 
we have solved it ages ago.

There are those who rather than to yield to the evidence of fact will 
prefer regarding even the planetary gods as "erring" disembodied 
philosophers if not actually liars. Be it so. Everyone is master of 
his own wisdom -- says a Tibetan proverb and he is at liberty either 
to honour or degrade his slave.

If our doctrines clash too much with your theories then we can easily 
give up the subject and talk of something else.

Must I repeat again that the best Adepts have searched the Universe 
during milleniums and found nowhere the slightest trace of such a 
Machiavellian schemer -- but throughout, the same immutable, 
inexorable law. You must excuse me therefore if I positively decline 
to lose my time over such childish speculations.

As you say this need "make no difference between us" -- personally. 
But it does make a world of difference if you propose to learn and 
offer me to teach. For the life of me I cannot make out how I could 
ever impart to you that which I know since the very A.B.C. of what I 
know, the rock upon which the secrets of the occult universe, whether 
on this or that side of the veil, are encrusted, is contradicted by 
you invariably and a priori. My very dear Brother, either we know 
something or we do not know anything. In the first case what is the 
use of your learning, since you think you know better? In the second 
case why should you lose your time? You say it matters nothing 
whether these laws are the expression of the will of an intelligent 
conscious God, as you think, or constitute the inevitable attributes 
of an unintelligent, unconscious "God," as I hold. I say, it matters 
everything, and since you earnestly believe that these fundamental 
questions (of spirit and matter -- of God or no God) "are admittedly 
beyond both of us" -- in other words that neither I nor yet our 
greatest adepts can know no more than you do, then what is there on 
earth that I could teach you? 

And to show you how exact a science is occultism let me tell you that 
the means we avail ourselves of are all laid down for us in a code as 
old as humanity to the minutest detail, but everyone of us has to 
begin from the beginning, not from the end. Our laws are as immutable 
as those of Nature, and they were known to man and eternity before 
this strutting game cock, modern science, was hatched. If I have not 
given you the modus operandi or begun by the wrong end, I have at 
least shown you that we build our philosophy upon experiment and 
deduction -- unless you choose to question and dispute this fact 
equally with all others. Learn first our laws and educate your 
perceptions, dear Brother. Control your involuntary powers and 
develop in the right direction your will and you will become a 
teacher instead of a learner. I would not refuse what I have a right 
to teach. Only I had to study for fifteen years before I came to the 
doctrines of cycles and had to learn simpler things at first. 

But do what we may, and whatever happens I trust we will have no more 
arguing which is as profitless as it is painful.
==========================================================

Daniel