Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00007)

Me too.
I often wonder about what this expression actually - says.

Here is my own words on it shortly stated...

There is no Religion Highter than the Truth. (The motto of the Theosophical Society - adopted from the Maharajahs of Benares in India).
It is scientifically speaking known that truth or truths are relative. Blavatsky and other theosophists also agreed on this.
And in fact actual Truth as such is without form. The world is illusorical, yet the truth is always shown there.

To call Truth a The Pathless Land is in fact nonsense. Truth is not a "land" and will never be one.
So such a Truth must be without form else it cannot be "pathless". But when it is without form - it cannot be a "land" in any actual sense of the word. - The energy in the expression tend to omit that actual Truth cannot be a Pathless Land in any sense unless Duality is completely removed in core of the individuals consciousness. Yet we known that Krishnamurti who used the expression also meant that removal of a time-based consciousness, and thereby duality, was essential, to the required psychological change.

The esoteric Prasangika Buddhists and some Adwaita Vedantists would parhaps have instead go and say: 
There is no truth, there is no land, there is no path - there is only Absolute Negation.
But an esoteric theosophist will perhaps say - what you call Absolute Negation we call the TRUTH. All other truths are steppingstones towards this Absolute Negation. And this Absolute Negation is negation of all limitations and all thought.

But these are just my views...
Maybe those who know the Kirhsnamurti teachings better, have something to offer.



M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:21 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky


    
  I have often wondered what "Truth is a pathless land' really means!
  Cass

  >________________________________
  > From: MKR <mkr777@sqDvNnUfsGx0zAB0ZYbtQ90D0oB1LJxJK5yqMnzO331Vch2WyvjjYrxkBctDIY1Gs880C9lSVPI.yahoo.invalid>
  >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  >Sent: Sunday, 1 January 2012 5:16 AM
  >Subject: Re: theos-talk On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky
  > 
  >
  >  
  >In the final analysis, IMHO, what is important is the conclusions each one
  >of us come to. Truth is a pathless land.
  >
  >On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM, proto37 <hozro@gPm2ozAQ970h03C47CjS3JX_xaGsZs-nRGjvPnZMEiBKaBdbE-RPe9du-6H6aac5K3Lt3YvOTWDno3Y4.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
  >
  >> **
  >>
  >>
  >> On Alice Bailey and Blavatsky
  >>
  >> Here is a link to a critical study on Alice Bailey's writings, or
  >> mediumship, by Victor Endersby, and Why Bailey is NOT "the same as
  >> Blavatsky," or the same as Theosophy. 'One of the "sects" sufilight refers
  >> to. So many jumped on Blavatsky's shirt-tails, and now, in the Night-time
  >> of the spiritual cycles, long after the "the last-quarter effort," they
  >> become more predominant, like other night-creatures.
  >>
  >> >http://www.scribd.com/doc/37333476/A-Critique-of-Alice-Bailey-Endersby<
  >>
  >> "Ninety-nine percent of all spiritual communications are prima facie
  >> false." Mahatma Letters (paraphrase)
  >>
  >> 
  >>
  >
  >[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]