Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
Dec 12, 2011 06:43 AM
by marcus_a_hughes
.
Thanks Sufilight,
"What do you think? The readers?"
Book of Proverbs chapter 23 verse 7, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
Why the insatiable urge to measure, label and judge. Why does the human race need to predict behavior. Why do humans look upon a beautiful starlight night and see patterns, shapes and then use these star light shapes to then suggest that the governance of the universe is making communication through these patterns.
It's business ??.. the business of human social order. When a man says he has been talking to the archangel Gabriel in a cave, what should society do ? When a prince says that after starving himself for forty days he could see all his past and future lives, what should society do ? if Helen Blavatsky had been presented to the current psychological care professionals, what would they conclude ?
The ancient slaves of Egypt made up 95% of the population. The only way to keep them oppressed was psychology. No difference to today.
All the truly great teachers taught the same principle, that is
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
Is this heaven or hell ????. Helen Blavatsky knew
.
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Cass
>
> 1.
> Cass wrote:
> "Not in my world, one can theorise but unless the experience is applied it remains an unproven hypothesis."
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> I think that was also what I sought to show in my previous post. The experience has to be applied in one sense or the other - else no change occurs. Yet something is, as I see it very often applied, even when we do not think so.
>
> I will seek to explain it a bit further, as I see it:
> Yet even by theorizing about psychology alone most people learn something - they experience something psychologically despite they merely theorize. They might not apply a given theory, but another psychological theory or concept might be applied instead of the theory they learn about, - ie. as a consequence of their activities. Small steps are small steps, whether they happen more or less consciously. Only very few persons who theorize about psychology - avoid applying any psychological change or anything psychologically at all. (A few dumb persons might of course avoid any change at all.) When we live we experience psychologically - ie. when we live in this world. - It is those who do not think or contemplate about the science of psychology who do not change psychologically --- in a conscious manner. And especially if they do not consciously apply what they learn. (I think that was what you referred to Cass.) Some persons can be said to be effectively prevented from having the intentions of learning consciously from psychology - whether scientifically spiritual or non-spiritual. Their state of mind simply disallow such an activity. And prejudices about psychology and psychologists are so to speak still quite prevalent on the planet in Western culture, and also other cultures. (An example --- Try this fellow-human being: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i3cuBUToz8&feature=related - smile.) There are of course materialistic psychologists and of course spiritual psychologists. - But all these are my views, others might disagree.
> Blavatsky wrote about the 7-fold universe. There are 7 notes of sound in the scale, (science has according to its scientists examined the human ear and found out why), 7 sections of elements in the Periodic table system, etc. etc. --- and 7 senses. The 5 ordinary sense - plus - the Mind and the Understanding, - 7 all in all says Blavatsky about the senses or causes of action. (Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 96 and 535, Vol. II, p. 568). So the mind is in fact one of the senses which cause action. If this sense or cause of action is being maltreated - how can we then see or sense things clearly? People ordinarily do not go around throwing dirt into their eyes. This psychological key so to speak are not unimportant these days, where the science of psychology has been accepted in the psychologically culturally conditioned Christian countries (that is: "psychologically culturally conditioned Christian countries" in the sense of psychologically blocked thought-patterns) - although only recently - and quite slowly since the 1880'ties, in the early days of the Theosophical Society. - In other countries especially in the East the science of psychology has been known for centuries. - Western countries are a bit slow sometimes, despite their materialistic scientific achivements in other areas, with their technicalities, technologies and it IT-gadgets etc.
>
> 2.
> Cass wrote:
> "Psychology offers only two explanations, either Jungian or Freudian, the others are mishmashes of or a combination of these ideas."
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> Come on - Cass, I am sure you know better than that.
> About Jung and Freud. It is known that psychology did not only develop in the Western countries, and not only a few hundred years ago.
> Roberto Assagioli are favoured very much by the Alice A. Bailey groups these days. He was one of Jung's pupils, but went a bit esoteric and created a psychological theory that coincides with Alice A. Bailey's.
>
>
> Try Wikipedia here:
> Eastern philosophy in clinical psychology
> (Rumi, d. 1273, Patanjali 510 BCE, Padmasambhava 8th century, Rahzes, d. 925, Avicenna, d. 1037, Al-Farabi (Alpharabius), d. 950, Ibn Sirin, d. 728, Ibn Tufail, d. 1185, and others can be mentioned. Se also the next link in the below. --- And we could add the pre-Fredian Al Gazahli, d. 1111, AND the pre-Jungian - Doctor Maximus - alias Ibn El Arabi, d. 1240. The latter taught similar to Jung about archtypes and dreams etc. etc. - Buddha, d. 538 BCE and many later Arhats who taught Abhidharma-psychology - or what today by some is called Mindfulnes Psychology. And then I have not mentioned the early philosophers like Thales and Socrates, Pythagoras and Aristotle or various Neo-platonists and their relationship with the science fo psychology through philosophy. And Wilhelm Wundt is by many considered just as important as Freud. Philosophers like Locke, Hume, Descartes and others could also be mentioned although they related psychology to philosophy.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_philosophy_in_clinical_psychology
>
> See also Wikipedia - History of psychology
> (Islamic physicians had psychiatric hospitals built as early as the 8th century in Fez, Morocco.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology
>
> I often witness that western cultural narrow-mindedness among scientists are unwilling to face these quite important facts about the origins of psychology.
>
> Psychology as a non-spiritual and rather materialistic science in the western countries is not quite new either. It appears that in Egypt they had non-religious psychology centuries before baby Jesus was born. See the Edwin Smith Papyrus (dated 1500 BCE).
>
>
> Cass wrote:
> "Modern psychology may be able to tell you the wyes or the wherefore's but can very very rarely heal the condition. Psychology of the ego is quite different from psychology of the soul. If a person does not believe in Karma or reincarnation psychology will never give him the reason for his phobias or talents."
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> When we talk about materialistic psychology, they do in fact heal various conditions these days. But, that is often not done with a spiritual or esoterical aim in mind. So I will not agree upon that view given by you. I will agree with you that "Psychology of the ego is quite different from psychology of the soul". And this is of course important.
> Persons have been helped to get rid of their phobias (or some of them) by ordinary psychologists in the latest decades, (there are enough documented examples to chose from to show this), even when they do not have the doctrines on karma and reincarnations as a hypothesis or a knowledge, or even as a more or less fanatical belief. These are my views.
>
> What do you think? The readers?
>
>
> best regards
> M. Sufilight
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cass Silva
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:15 AM
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
>
>
>
> Not in my world, one can theorise but unless the experience is applied it remains an unproven hypothesis. Psychology offers only two explanations, either Jungian or Freudian, the others are mishmashes of or a combination of these ideas. Modern psychology may be able to tell you the wyes or the wherefore's but can very very rarely heal the condition. Psychology of the ego is quite different from psychology of the soul. If a person does not believe in Karma or reincarnation psychology will never give him the reason for his phobias or talents.
>
> Cass
>
> >________________________________
> > From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2011 10:24 PM
> >Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
> >
> >
> >
> >Dear Cass
> >
> >My view is:
> >What is being taught is being experienced. What is being experienced - can - psychologically change the individual.
> >To study psychology is to study psycholocial change. Knowledge about psychological change might change the individual - although it does not always seem to happen.
> >Avoiding studying or learning about psychology (spiritual or non-spiritual) - is also to avoid knowledge about psychological change. Despite this psychological change might happen.
> >All and everything might psychologically change an individual. Some persons do seek and teach themselves about psychological change, they do not merely wait for experiences that might change them psychologically. These are however just my views.
> >
> >____
> >Within various theosophical and eastern teachings there are forwarded a doctrine called the Law of Distributive Karma.
> >
> >M. Sufilight
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Cass Silva
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:27 AM
> >Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
> >
> >Theories of psychology can be taught but understanding our own psychology cannot be taught, but can only be experienced.
> >Cass
> >
> >>________________________________
> >> From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
> >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2011 12:23 PM
> >>Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Dear Cass
> >>
> >>Interesting idea.
> >>
> >>My view is:
> >>There are beliefs and there are hypothesises, and there are assumed knowledge and real knowledge, although it might be limited.
> >>Usually I do not believe anythning - I hypothize or I know.
> >>Psychology can be taught to us humans. Do you nor agree? Science have in the later years in the Western countries proven that more knowledge about psychology - can - ("can" is emphasized) help people become more compassionate and altruistic. In the Eastern countries this has been taught for centuries. Buddha was as I see it one of the eksponents of this doctrine. The end of suffering.
> >>Yet, it also seem to be a fact, that each individual has to do an effort on their own - else no psychological change will occur. - And from that psychological change a change of heart will occur - or - might occur. Not all flowers of visdom bloom at the same time. They need water, food and nursing as they say.
> >>
> >>I also have this view:
> >>Altruism is not really somthing that is felt - it is as far as I have learned it something that higher than "feeling", in the sense of feelings that mask themselves as altruism. - With other words: What sometimes is perceived as altruism - is in fact only "higher" emotions. Thias happen due to Maya.
> >>
> >>But maybe you were referring to something else?
> >>
> >>M. Sufilight
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: Cass Silva
> >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:42 AM
> >>Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
> >>
> >>Morten
> >>I think you are making the fundamental mistake of believing that altruism can be taught, when imo, it can only be 'felt'
> >>Cass
> >>
> >>>________________________________
> >>> From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
> >>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>>Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2011 1:08 AM
> >>>Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thanks.
> >>>I will continue as before, however perhaps with more caution.
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: marcus_oxoxoxo
> >>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:34 AM
> >>>Subject: theos-talk Re: On how to promote altruism for humanity
> >>>
> >>>.
> >>>
> >>>Dear M. Sufilight.
> >>>
> >>>You are exactly what the creator needs you to be. Your soul has a message for the physical world and you are bound by your nature to voice it. My guess is that most voluntary members of theosophical , philosophical, spiritual and mystical communities have similar doubts of themselves from time to time.
> >>>
> >>>There are many sacred laws that govern this creation. One of the more obvious is the supreme power of unconditional Love. Throughout these life journeys we will experience the "the attracts of the insidious". Since the fall of Adam, mankind has struggled with the concept of sharing.
> >>>
> >>>A wise man once said "judge not least yee too be judged" realise this applies to the whole of todays creation. Are you a Christian Fundamentalist ??? only you have right to decide. Be kind to yourself. Is that person at the meeting "quite mad" again in the same token. Only that person has the right to judge himself.
> >>>
> >>>The answer to your question is ::: Rise above. You are a man of Goood. That's the way the creator made you. Offer only unconditional love in all your undertakings.
> >>>
> >>>That way, you won't give a rats-ass what they say.
> >>>We all get crucified in the end, hopefully.
> >>>
> >>>Peace and Love, always everywhere.
> >>>
> >>>.
> >>>
> >>>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear friends
> >>>>
> >>>> My views are:
> >>>>
> >>>> I have been through a meeting with a person who as I see it was acting quite mad. I am not going to mention the name on the person.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to ask the members on this forum:
> >>>> Am I to be considered - a Christian Fundamentalist - by how I am writing about theosophical subjects and life as such on this forum?
> >>>> If so, would you please elaborate on your views?
> >>>>
> >>>> I ask honestly, because I am a bit in doubt about how you view me.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> M. Sufilight
> >>>>
> >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
