Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01557)

In a message dated 04/22/05 10:46:16 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:

>Hi Leon,
> 
>Are you saying that there are many paths, three that I can bring to mind.
> 
>The path of the mystic - through love of intuition
>The path of the thinker - through love of intellect
>The path of the ritualist -through love of ritual
>All having love as their basis. All equal
> 
>Do you think we are either Apollonian or Dionyssian in nature? Or perhaps,
>is it the balance of the two that brings harmony and equilibrium? 
> 
>Regards
>Cass

That's too simplistic for my taste. Actually there are at least seven yoga 
paths, which include love of power, love of wisdom, love of God, etc. -- all of 
which boil down to love of Self. So we can follow them all -- with the 
ultimate one being the Raja Yoga that works up from the physical to the higher 
mind, and that includes all seven yoga's. 

The path the SD shows us is the intellectual path of the Jnana Yoga that 
gives us the foundation of the true metaphysical reality which enables us to 
ultimately have the omniscience of the Dhyan Chohans after we finish the practice 
of gaining self realization through practice of the Rajah yoga path of 
Patanjali. This Rajah path is a particular method to control the mind, awaken its 
higher intuitive aspect, and attain the same results that the path of the Zen Koan 
" Ten Bulls" leads to.

So, I think our nature can be anything we make it. As Buddha said, 
"Everything we are is the result of what we have thought." The problem is to make that 
thought in harmony with the true nature of the all -- which is neither this 
nor that, but is everything that is the perfect balance and equilibrium between 
all the extremes of possible thought. Thus, any path that leads to that is 
the right path. In my case, I chose the Jnana Yoga to Rajah Yoga path -- which 
is where my karma pointed me to.

Therefore each of us must find that particular path that we must choose for 
ourselves based on our own individual karma. And then follow it until it leads 
us to a higher path. As the Master said, "The path of another is fraught 
with danger."

Best wishes,

Leon 

P.S. Ignore all the simple minded buttinskis, and one line jokesters, who 
haven't the faintest idea what we are all talking about. :-) Soon our 
letterboxes will get so full of all this chat room nonsense that we'll have to start a 
new group for the people who are just interested in talking about theosophy. 



>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 04/22/05 2:45:19 AM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk writes:
>Leon wrote:
>
>>"The only liberation intended was liberating people from their ignorance of 
>>the true nature of reality. "
>
>I find that to be exactly what I was referring to.
>Removal of ignorance is the same as Atma-Vidya.
>
>About Karma - I will refer to the book The Key to Theosophy. 

I would add the Ocean of Theosophy as well as WQJ's Aphorisms on Karma.

And for a theosophical yoga practice for purposes of self realization on the 
inner level, I would refer to The Voice of the Silence coupled with 
Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms (and its footnotes) by WQJ. 

>But Leon I do think that Blavatsky did very well. But what does the Master
>think about it?

I'm glad we agree. But, to find out what the "Master" thinks, you'll have to 
ask one of them.

>Are you a Master? If not - how do you know?

That's for me to know and for you to find out. Since, the only way you can 
know if anyone is a master (and of what) is "by their fruits." 

In this case, I know that I know. (And, that all that anyone has to know. :-)

>Leon wrote:
>
>>"It did not intend to teach those practices.
>>Therefore, the book was purely intellectual in nature"
>
>I think that is below your usual level of writing.

Not when I'm talking about "religious practices" NOT taught in the SD.

>NO BOOK is only "purely intellectual in nature".
>Everything and all life exists on the seven planes of manifestation.
>And a book written by a Dhyan Chohan exists on higher levels as well.

Yet, when you read and interpret such books, even if between the lines to 
comprehend their deeper meaning, you are using your intellect -- which is 
both 
your rational and intuitive mind. 

If anyone can see a ritual or religious practice recommended in the teachings 
of HPB in the Secret Doctrine, then they are experiencing wrong thought and 
therefore non pure intellectual discernment. Even the Book of Dzyan, which 
most 
likely was written by a Dhyan Chohan, has to be studied intellectually in 
order to discern its deeper meaning. 

Therefore, all "books" teaching a science, a metaphysics, a philosophy, or 
even a religion, especially for the purposes of their comparison and 
synthesis, 
are designed to reach us through our intellect. If the SD was otherwise, it 
would not be so matter of fact, and would appeal more to our emotional nature 
-- thereby being classified as a mystical or fantasy treatise, rather than an 
intellectual one, as HPB intended. 

Best wishes,

Leon