Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00741)

M. Sufilight wrote:

>Allright. But maybe we are also both of us wrong?
>
I could try to make a case of that if you would like :-\

>Or maybe it is the emails and the impact of their design upon readers like 
>you, which are important?
>
I'm interested in design, but think that the design of emails are rather 
uninspiring.

>If a person request me to use scholarship and when the very use of 
>scholarship
>hampers my possibilities to email and address certain persons; -
>This person is in fact requiring, that I follow his or her rules upon how to 
>email
>or at least a certain approach on how to email.
>
I am completely unfamiliar with that kind of scholarship. Where did you 
receive this training, and in what field?

>***
>This is my definition:
>True Scholarship is not Theosophy.
>True Scholarship is to be acting stupid without using wisdom.
>Scholarship is linear.
>Theosophy is non-linear, and theosophy is Divine Wisdom.
>***
>
I think we will have to just agree to disagree on this. 

--j









>Hallo Jerry and all,
>
>My views are:
>
>Well thanks, I guess.
>
>My answers are inserted in the below using ***.
>
>from
>M. Sufilight
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" <jjhe@charter.net>
>To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:52 PM
>Subject: Theos-World Communicating Theosophy
>
>
> 
>
>>Thank you Dallas and Sufilight for finally addressing the important
>>question of communicating Theosophy. You are both right. Accuracy is
>>important. So is meaningful discussion.
>> 
>>
>***
>Allright. But maybe we are also both of us wrong?
>Or maybe it is the emails and the impact of their design upon readers like 
>you, which are important?
>***
>
> 
>
>>To post citations to Theosophical texts germane to every topic that
>>comes up may be useful to those who have not already read the material,
>>or don't know how to look up the material for themselves. However this,
>>it itself, is not scholarship. While scholarship implies one's ability
>>to research a subject--to use indexes, bibliographies etc., it also
>>implies skills in interpreting and discussing this material.
>> 
>>
>***
>Well, I think, that depends upon how we define the word scholarship.
>
>If a person request me to use scholarship and when the very use of 
>scholarship
>hampers my possibilities to email and address certain persons; -
>This person is in fact requiring, that I follow his or her rules upon how to 
>email
>or at least a certain approach on how to email.
>We could question whether such a request always is spiritually genuine.
>
>Sometimes it is.
>But, any theosophical activity aught to be an issue of relating your 
>activity to time, place and people.
>And this is Learning how to Learning.
>And Learning how to Learn is not merely linear Scholarship.
>This is the difference when I view the exchange between me and Dallas.
>This is theosophy.
>***
> 
>
>>During the 1960s and 70s, I belonged to a Theosophical Study group led
>>by one of Boris de Zirkoff's students. Almost every time I opened my
>>mouth to comment upon something HPB or some other Theosophist or Mahatma
>>wrote, my teacher would stop me and demand that I tell her exactly which
>>book and where in that book one would find the quote which I was
>>referring. I learned to play the game, and like a little parrot, learned
>>to quote passages from, say, the Secret Doctrine, then tell you upon
>>what page and paragraph one would find that quote. Though I learned to
>>play the game, I also deeply resented its implications. True
>>scholarship is not learning to be a mindless parrot. It is leaning to
>>more deeply understand and to effectively communicate your subject.
>> 
>>
>***
>This is my definition:
>True Scholarship is not Theosophy.
>True Scholarship is to be acting stupid without using wisdom.
>Scholarship is linear.
>Theosophy is non-linear, and theosophy is Divine Wisdom.
>***
> 
>
>>I agree with Dallas, that it is important to be able to accurately cite
>>and quote our sources. I would also add that true learning comes when
>>we gain insight into what we read. That is done through meditation
>>*and* discussion. Discussion is an important learning tool, and ought
>>not to be denigrated.
>> 
>>
>***
>Yes. I also agree upon that this is important, but only when time, place and 
>people
>requires that you do so.
>You do not gain any real insight by exchanging emails by requiring that the
>emailer always has to follow your rules and likening for scholarship when 
>emailing.
>***
> 
>
>>I also agree with sufilight that discussion needs to be meaningful and,
>>hopefully, inspiring. I would also add that for the discussion about a
>>quote to be meaningful, we need to have an accurate knowledge of what
>>was actually written.
>> 
>>
>***
>I can almost hear a Miss Marple say the following: "Well, Jerry. Do we 
>really need it to be so ?"
>Maybe someone Wants it so be so.
>But there is no spiritual need.
>
>
>from
>M. Sufilight with peace and love...
>***
> 
>
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>>M. Sufilight wrote:
>>>
>>>Hallo Dallas and all,
>>>
>>>My views are:
>>>
>>>Dallas wrote:
>>>"> I note with deep regret that some have offered their opinions 
>>>concerning
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>>usefulness and validity of HPB's writings, and to bolster this, the
>>>>Mahatmas' opinions are vaguely quoted. Let's have some precision and 
>>>>some
>>>>degree of scholarship and organization, shall we ? "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>My answer:
>>>I note also with regret, that Dallas a long time student of theosophy
>>>has the appearnt aim of degrading our level of knowledge
>>>down to a scholary one.
>>>Let us have a more inspiring stance than a scholary one.
>>>I beg you Dallas.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]