Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00629)

Thanks Steve,

I understand and appreciate your perspective.  I tend to see divine 
wisdom as ever present reality.  As such it is as available to us as the 
air we breath, if we but realize how to experience it directly.   The 
Monad is Divine Wisdom and the monadic rays are its first expressions in 
this universe (universal wisdom).  What HPB  did was  draw   many of  
these expressions (which are the same at their source)  into one  
bouquet  around which she tied a simple string which she fashioned out 
of universal brotherhood, a comparative study of the various flowers in 
the bouquet, and a study of our self and how we might learn to 
experience more than the gross physical world.  The more we resist any 
of these three elements and especially the more we resist universal 
brotherhood, the harder we pull at that string.

Being aware only intellectually that each monadic expression (labeled 
as a particular religion, science, philosophy, or movement) is an 
expression of the one divine wisdom, we distort each expression by 
demanding that it conform to our intellectual capabilities alone.  When 
we learn to bypass the intellect and directly experience the One Unity 
in All Expression at the source, we will have experienced a significant 
life-altering event.  Until that happens we continue to act as though we 
and our "enemies" are different from beginning to end.

This is just an expression of my personal view and is not intended to be 
anything more than that.


peace,


bill





Steven Levey wrote:
> Bill
>      In truth, if your looking for a point out of which came another huge influx of theosophical philosophy other than HPB's, I really don't know where to look. Having said that, I think she goes long away to prove that her work is as "standing on the
>  shoulders of giants", in the sense that she continually oriented all readers of her work to those who came before her. So in that sense, her outpouring is not original, but in the sense that she was the beginning upon which all that followed was written, I think she has to be seen as the "original". Truthfully, I don't find it in any way distasteful to see and know her writings that way. 
>       Now, if you look at her writings, and especially their emphasis, in that it is humane and hugely comparative for her conclusions, then her Theosophy is synonymous with the technical meaning of that term-Universal Wisdom. It excludes no system as containing this Universal seed of wisdom and draws them together for the reader. I have never found her motive odd or questionable, but this is taking in her writings as a whole, where The Voice, The Secret Doctrine, The Key, etc, etc., are accounted for. I've never gotten into the picky fashion of trying authenticate her stuff, because I've always been happy with her well rounded direction of inclusion. In other words if one is sick and wants to take medicine it counts for nothing to have demured taking the medicine on the basis of having not authenticated it. Yes, over time a student learns some discrimination, so that really odd pseudo occult doctrines promising Nirvana by morning, or those mixed with odd ritual, become by-passed.
>  Plus, the genuine test of a doctrine is personal application, and if that is done, without concern for time or results, then I've nothing to complain about regarding her Judge or Crosbie and a few others. 
>       The thing is Bill, there is so much to read and ponder, just amongst those writers, not to mention a few Buddhist writers such as the Dalai Lama and a few really significant Lamas in that tradition such as Santideva, I've no need to read much else. Practice is the key, and through it a student will leave what is not fit for them behind.
>    
>   Steve
> Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@earthlink.net> wrote:
>   Thanks, Steve. I have always considered you an independent sort, so I 
> apologize if I gave the impression that I was pigeon-holing you. I, 
> too, am a "free agent." As to whether I am a theosophists or not, I 
> suppose that would be in the eye of the beholder. As I see myself, I am 
> intending to be a theosophist as HPB defines that term in "The 
> Omnipresent Proteus."
>
> In reading your comments, I wonder if you would address the idea that 
> Blavatsky's outpouring is the "original" outpouring of theosophy which I 
> interpret as 'divine wisdom'. I understand the phrase 'universal 
> wisdom" as well, and wonder if you see a difference there worth noting?
>
> peace,
>
>
> bill
>
> Steven Levey wrote:
>   
> > Bill
> > What you are over looking in my response about the TM and non-organization, is that I am commenting as a "free agent", not outwardly affiliated to any ULT, while remaining completely aligned with the sense behind the founding of ULT. Now, having been around the country a bit, and seeing for myself the operation of other Lodges, it's become quite apparent, that even though the original intent of the founder, Robert Crosbie, was to have groups of students and no actual organization with by-laws and officers-it's soul bond being devotion to to the original teachings/Mahatmas as presented through HPB and Judge, none the less, the group dynamics tending towards hierarches, etc. has actually had the impact of bringing dogmatic thought and this congregationalism I mentioned, into these Lodges.
> > Having said that, it is also clear to me, that the thesosphical movement, if it is seen as that movement whose intent is to bring the unalloyed thoughts and philosophy of the Mahatmas into the world scene, in doing so requires an organised, at least systematic approach to make this presentation possible. But, this is true of our culture, not neccesarily so in other cultures or in the ancient world of lesser materialistic and less compartmentalised culture or community. I feel that this is a correct assumption if one looks at our culture as the by product of the blockage of the inner man, so that to get community and culture acomplished, the personalities of our day need structure. This being a by-product of stunted imagination and the poor ability to manifest needs and accomplishment through the application of "will". Therefore more focus through assistance of organised wills, is required for us. 
> > Now, if other students of ULT feel similarly, I suppose that's fine. My intention is not to be original, but to call attention to the fact that even ULT needs a system of checks and balances, as has failed in the Adyar and TSA, through which the original outpourings can stay fresh with the application of open mindedness by its participants. This means that organization needs to be less important than the reason they have come into existence. In fact they need to be seen as vehicles, like our personalities. To that end, I don't feel that Theos-talk is experiencing a ULT-Adyar confrontation. I feel it is experiencing the natural difficulties and sufferings of students as they, on occasion, wake up to the fact that there was an original and clean outpouring of wisdom (yes through atmittedly imperfect folks) which has become muddied up though power plays and pretension under what ever name. 
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>