Blavatsky on 7D

[luke wilson]

Maybe the problem is 'meaning' and 'validation'. I'll confess I don't know much about the person in question, blavatsky, so cant talk on the basis of content.

Arpaxad, clearly the person means something to you. They must do otherwise you wouldn't bring them up this much, so much that some people think you are a marketer! It's obviously not a nice feeling when you are met with invalidation, whether warranted or not. It immediately makes you feel 'bad'. And maybe, more than that, it challenges the position this person has in your mind. The place they have come to occupy and your relationship with that. This position and your relationship to it could also somehow affect how you live, see the world, communicate with people etc. So essentially, when something so primary is challenged, it's more than just an idea that is being questioned, it could be much more, way more than what is in the immediate view of the person acting as the 'agent of delivery'. To cut it short, my contribution is to say that on the basis of actual content, you can explore your field and communicate with other people to learn more about the subject matter in question.

On the question of meaning and attachment, maybe you don't have to abandon your fascination/fixation with the person in question. I don't know what they mean to you and its highly unlikely other people do either. It may therefore come across as violent when people act towards you in a way that looks like they are seeking to strip meaning away from your identity. But, this is not what's happening, they are just talking content. Instead, if you want to engage with others in a constructive way, maybe you can have 2 positions, on 1 you can still have this 'meaning' and on the other you can explore the content others are directing you towards. Maybe humility can help here, instead of seeing yourself as primarily the teacher, here to disseminate what you've learnt, maybe you can take a position of student, here to learn something new, to add extra to your identity. Its a matter of playing with what position you occupy and you don't have to suffer from the effects of invalidation!

Anyways, I hope that helps!

 

[United Gnosis]

Yes, this is what was on my mind, too, at the time. Thank you for posting it obyvatel.

UG, I am sorry if I confused you and hope that obyvatel's post has helped a bit.

Thank you, Nienna (and Oby, Buddy) but no need to be sorry. Although I wanted to answer Arpaxad directly I guess I got excited and attwmpted to pre-empt him criticising what you said. With that impulse in mind I missed the subtle aspect of his posts you were really replying to. My bad.

 

[sitting]

Oh, I get it. It might be some kind of "demonic" conspiracy! :)

No. I don't think that.

But I do think you've over-estimated your own level of knowledge.

I based this assessment on your other post. The one where you rather carelessly made a toss salad of Buddhism -- Hinduism -- Tantrism. That's a very odd blend to serve up ... on the same plate. Are you aware of their fundamental differences???

I thought that was revealing.

I'm familiar with the work of HPB. And I failed to see where you've brought out her strong points. You simply quoted patches that were actually more confusing than revealing. A true student of her work can cogently summarize key points -- in their own words. That you haven't done. And I'm not sure if it's unwillingness or inability.

I also did not like your covert potshot (the sneaky one, not the obvious one) at Laura. It was childish to say the least.

At the end of the day, I believe this has more to do with you -- and little to do with HPB.

FWIW.

 

[iam]

Maybe the problem is 'meaning' and 'validation'. I'll confess I don't know much about the person in question, blavatsky, so cant talk on the basis of content.

Arpaxad, clearly the person means something to you. They must do otherwise you wouldn't bring them up this much, so much that some people think you are a marketer! It's obviously not a nice feeling when you are met with invalidation, whether warranted or not. It immediately makes you feel 'bad'. And maybe, more than that, it challenges the position this person has in your mind. The place they have come to occupy and your relationship with that. This position and your relationship to it could also somehow affect how you live, see the world, communicate with people etc. So essentially, when something so primary is challenged, it's more than just an idea that is being questioned, it could be much more, way more than what is in the immediate view of the person acting as the 'agent of delivery'. To cut it short, my contribution is to say that on the basis of actual content, you can explore your field and communicate with other people to learn more about the subject matter in question.

On the question of meaning and attachment, maybe you don't have to abandon your fascination/fixation with the person in question. I don't know what they mean to you and its highly unlikely other people do either. It may therefore come across as violent when people act towards you in a way that looks like they are seeking to strip meaning away from your identity. But, this is not what's happening, they are just talking content. Instead, if you want to engage with others in a constructive way, maybe you can have 2 positions, on 1 you can still have this 'meaning' and on the other you can explore the content others are directing you towards. Maybe humility can help here, instead of seeing yourself as primarily the teacher, here to disseminate what you've learnt, maybe you can take a position of student, here to learn something new, to add extra to your identity. Its a matter of playing with what position you occupy and you don't have to suffer from the effects of invalidation!

Anyways, I hope that helps!

ahhhh luke! i was looking for you! i want to take this moment to say i really appreciate that you always try to communicate with respect and compassion. even when people may be wrong you don't attack them, but rather educate them in a way that allows them to put their guard down so they can actually "hear" what you are saying. I wish i would have listened to you before i shut my last account down. much love many thanks and big hugs! thanks for standing up for the little guy when the little guy had noone :)

 

[sitting]

even when people may be wrong you don't attack them, but rather educate them in a way that allows them to put their guard down so they can actually "hear" what you are saying.

Hi iam,

I hear you. And I agree with you.

In my post on this thread, my real intention was to be direct ... to counter what I thought was someone's indirectness. And the "preaching" attitude simply made me even more direct. But there was no malice, nor a wish to attack. If it came across that way to some, then I apologize.

FWIW.

 

[iam]

even when people may be wrong you don't attack them, but rather educate them in a way that allows them to put their guard down so they can actually "hear" what you are saying.

Hi iam,

I hear you. And I agree with you.

In my post on this thread, my real intention was to be direct ... to counter what I thought was someone's indirectness. And the "preaching" attitude simply made me even more direct. But there was no malice, nor a wish to attack. If it came across that way to some, then I apologize.

FWIW.

I actually didnt read the whole thread. I was specifically looking for luke and saw he had posted on this thread, so i chose to thank him here because I could not figure out if you could send a personal message. It was a coincedence that he had addressed a situation similar to why I wanted to thank him which is why i quoted him.

You did not offend me at all and i'm sorry if you felt I was singling you out. i definitely don't want to make anyone feel like that because thats part of the reason I left. SO i should be the one to apologize for the misunderstanding.

I closed down my previous account because I was being sensitive and could not understand why people on here were being so judgemental when all i had been was nice and understanding to every one else's opinion. He always would step in and help both parties realize each others perception and how to communicate in an ethical manner.

I came back to this forum after i read her writings on don jaun and the petty tyrants and realized you have to face that what cripples you. I swear the first day i came back i was immediately attacked in the same fashion as before by a completely different person this time lol. Everyone on this forum who attacked me definitely had a history of it and were supported but those of the like. I went as far as to get outsiders to read my responses to see if i deserved those types of responses, and no one agreed that i should have been addressed in that fashion and advised to just find another source of information.

but life has a strange way for us to learn lessons, and this forum is the best place to learn because you encounter so many personalities with varying degrees of egos. Some think they are correct in everything they say, so they ridicule others in varying degrees, who are not in compliance with their thoughts to prove to themselves and others that they are right. Some may do it on one solid point they are convinced is true, but how do you get someone to learn or understand that they may be going in the wrong direction if you are attacking or insulting them??? Some people would argue that they don't care if they get it or not, but if that was the case why respond and keep responding?

I've learned over time that everyone is not going to agree with you or even like you, and vice versa, but that's no reason to insult someone even in a subtle way. Allow people to be who they choose to be, learn their way and at their own pace. the c's have demonstrated this to us consistently while working with laura.

i know this is a long response but i want to ensure you that this is not directed at you in ANY fashion because i don't know what you have written on this forum at this point. It just seemed to coincide with why I wanted to thank luke wilson.

so luke if your reading this ... thank you..

and thank you sitting for apologizing because you thought you offended someone. That says and means a lot to me especially after my experiences on this forum. many big hugs to you too :) :) :)

 

[sitting]

Thank you.

 

[luke wilson]

Maybe the problem is 'meaning' and 'validation'. I'll confess I don't know much about the person in question, blavatsky, so cant talk on the basis of content.

Arpaxad, clearly the person means something to you. They must do otherwise you wouldn't bring them up this much, so much that some people think you are a marketer! It's obviously not a nice feeling when you are met with invalidation, whether warranted or not. It immediately makes you feel 'bad'. And maybe, more than that, it challenges the position this person has in your mind. The place they have come to occupy and your relationship with that. This position and your relationship to it could also somehow affect how you live, see the world, communicate with people etc. So essentially, when something so primary is challenged, it's more than just an idea that is being questioned, it could be much more, way more than what is in the immediate view of the person acting as the 'agent of delivery'. To cut it short, my contribution is to say that on the basis of actual content, you can explore your field and communicate with other people to learn more about the subject matter in question.

On the question of meaning and attachment, maybe you don't have to abandon your fascination/fixation with the person in question. I don't know what they mean to you and its highly unlikely other people do either. It may therefore come across as violent when people act towards you in a way that looks like they are seeking to strip meaning away from your identity. But, this is not what's happening, they are just talking content. Instead, if you want to engage with others in a constructive way, maybe you can have 2 positions, on 1 you can still have this 'meaning' and on the other you can explore the content others are directing you towards. Maybe humility can help here, instead of seeing yourself as primarily the teacher, here to disseminate what you've learnt, maybe you can take a position of student, here to learn something new, to add extra to your identity. Its a matter of playing with what position you occupy and you don't have to suffer from the effects of invalidation!

Anyways, I hope that helps!

ahhhh luke! i was looking for you! i want to take this moment to say i really appreciate that you always try to communicate with respect and compassion. even when people may be wrong you don't attack them, but rather educate them in a way that allows them to put their guard down so they can actually "hear" what you are saying. I wish i would have listened to you before i shut my last account down. much love many thanks and big hugs! thanks for standing up for the little guy when the little guy had noone :)

Thanks iam and glad to see you back! I'm just a student, like you and sometimes us students gotta help each other out! :) anyways, I think a huge percentage conflict of situations that lead to all sorts of unsavory results are due to people not really understanding each other which leads to people not trusting each other. For the most part, we all want the same thing, so it's not a nice thing when you see what are essentially allies going at each other with metaphorical bats. On a macro level, change is only possible when divisions between people are broken down, when people understand each other and build trust between themselves. Obviously some may take the opinion of screw the majority, let them burn, if you've got the escape key, to head straight for the exit door but that's not the way here really. For one, there isn't an exit door, we are in it together!

And you may have felt attacked but I think I can safely say no one here has a personal vendetta against you personally. Whenever you doubt this, just remember that no one here actually knows who you are, your history, what has shaped you etc. All they know is how you express yourself and what you say. Plus, the spirit is such that they don't have personal vendettas. The forum has an aim and the aim is not necessarily to make any particular individual to feel comfortable,warm or fuzzy. :) what you may perceive as attack or not attack depends on your alignment to the overall organism. Naturally, you have a lot of freedom within yourself to mold how you are in relation to the overall picture. Remember, you aren't just one thing, you can be many things! :) no need to hold rigidly onto a single identity. You can have a more robust interaction with whatever environment you find yourself in if you are that little bit more adaptable..

 

[iam]

Thanks iam and glad to see you back! I'm just a student, like you and sometimes us students gotta help each other out! :) anyways, I think a huge percentage conflict of situations that lead to all sorts of unsavory results are due to people not really understanding each other which leads to people not trusting each other. For the most part, we all want the same thing, so it's not a nice thing when you see what are essentially allies going at each other with metaphorical bats. On a macro level, change is only possible when divisions between people are broken down, when people understand each other and build trust between themselves. Obviously some may take the opinion of screw the majority, let them burn, if you've got the escape key, to head straight for the exit door but that's not the way here really. For one, there isn't an exit door, we are in it together!

And you may have felt attacked but I think I can safely say no one here has a personal vendetta against you personally. Whenever you doubt this, just remember that no one here actually knows who you are, your history, what has shaped you etc. All they know is how you express yourself and what you say. Plus, the spirit is such that they don't have personal vendettas. The forum has an aim and the aim is not necessarily to make any particular individual to feel comfortable,warm or fuzzy. :) what you may perceive as attack or not attack depends on your alignment to the overall organism. Naturally, you have a lot of freedom within yourself to mold how you are in relation to the overall picture. Remember, you aren't just one thing, you can be many things! :) no need to hold rigidly onto a single identity. You can have a more robust interaction with whatever environment you find yourself in if you are that little bit more adaptable..

agreed :)

 

[zak]

Maybe the problem is 'meaning' and 'validation'. I'll confess I don't know much about the person in question, blavatsky, so cant talk on the basis of content.

Arpaxad, clearly the person means something to you. They must do otherwise you wouldn't bring them up this much, so much that some people think you are a marketer! It's obviously not a nice feeling when you are met with invalidation, whether warranted or not. It immediately makes you feel 'bad'. And maybe, more than that, it challenges the position this person has in your mind. The place they have come to occupy and your relationship with that. This position and your relationship to it could also somehow affect how you live, see the world, communicate with people etc. So essentially, when something so primary is challenged, it's more than just an idea that is being questioned, it could be much more, way more than what is in the immediate view of the person acting as the 'agent of delivery'. To cut it short, my contribution is to say that on the basis of actual content, you can explore your field and communicate with other people to learn more about the subject matter in question.

On the question of meaning and attachment, maybe you don't have to abandon your fascination/fixation with the person in question. I don't know what they mean to you and its highly unlikely other people do either. It may therefore come across as violent when people act towards you in a way that looks like they are seeking to strip meaning away from your identity. But, this is not what's happening, they are just talking content. Instead, if you want to engage with others in a constructive way, maybe you can have 2 positions, on 1 you can still have this 'meaning' and on the other you can explore the content others are directing you towards. Maybe humility can help here, instead of seeing yourself as primarily the teacher, here to disseminate what you've learnt, maybe you can take a position of student, here to learn something new, to add extra to your identity. Its a matter of playing with what position you occupy and you don't have to suffer from the effects of invalidation!

Anyways, I hope that helps!

ahhhh luke! i was looking for you! i want to take this moment to say i really appreciate that you always try to communicate with respect and compassion. even when people may be wrong you don't attack them, but rather educate them in a way that allows them to put their guard down so they can actually "hear" what you are saying. I wish i would have listened to you before i shut my last account down. much love many thanks and big hugs! thanks for standing up for the little guy when the little guy had noone :)

Thanks iam and glad to see you back! I'm just a student, like you and sometimes us students gotta help each other out! :) anyways, I think a huge percentage conflict of situations that lead to all sorts of unsavory results are due to people not really understanding each other which leads to people not trusting each other. For the most part, we all want the same thing, so it's not a nice thing when you see what are essentially allies going at each other with metaphorical bats. On a macro level, change is only possible when divisions between people are broken down, when people understand each other and build trust between themselves. Obviously some may take the opinion of screw the majority, let them burn, if you've got the escape key, to head straight for the exit door but that's not the way here really. For one, there isn't an exit door, we are in it together!

And you may have felt attacked but I think I can safely say no one here has a personal vendetta against you personally. Whenever you doubt this, just remember that no one here actually knows who you are, your history, what has shaped you etc. All they know is how you express yourself and what you say. Plus, the spirit is such that they don't have personal vendettas. The forum has an aim and the aim is not necessarily to make any particular individual to feel comfortable,warm or fuzzy. :) what you may perceive as attack or not attack depends on your alignment to the overall organism. Naturally, you have a lot of freedom within yourself to mold how you are in relation to the overall picture. Remember, you aren't just one thing, you can be many things! :) no need to hold rigidly onto a single identity. You can have a more robust interaction with whatever environment you find yourself in if you are that little bit more adaptable..

About that i found some interestings posts in this thread: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,7077.100.html

Citation de: obyvatel le septembre 07, 2010, 08:06:47 am

I wish for some feedback. The immediate context is the exchange I had with EmeraldHope in this thread. In my initial post addressed to her, I wanted to mention that reading her posts in different threads, I had felt for some time that there was a flavour of teacher trying to help others. But I could not write this simple sentence - instead I chose to be oblique. Today after reading Laura's response to EmeraldHope, I felt sort of a relief on one hand. Then I wrote another post trying to justify my previous oblique post. But after some more time went by and I kept this thought at the back of my mind throughout the day, I felt dishonest. This struggle with directly stating what I feel is not new for me - it has happened many times in the context of interactions in this forum. Usually, in these cases, I do not post. When someone else eventually reports the same dynamic that I felt like writing about, there is a sense of relief.
Looking into this struggle inside of me, I see the question what if I am wrong in my assessment and it hurts another person unnecessarily? I rationalize further that there are those much further ahead in the Work than I am who have a great track record of seeing such dynamics and they would write about it when the time is right. I have a boat load of programs running inside me of which I am gradually becoming aware and so am not sure of that I see these situations clearly without projection. So silence seems to be prudent. But it also leaves a taste of not being fully honest with the network as far as my participation is concerned.
I remember G saying in ISOTM that complete sincerity is needed with the teacher in the Work. G also said that it is vitally important to practice external consideration in the Work when dealing with others in the school. I am beginning to think that politely stating what I feel while accepting the possibility of being wrong in my assessment may be the general way to proceed. I would appreciate feedback. Thanks in advance.

truth seeker:
I've also struggled with this. With me, the assessment may be correct but then there still lies the question of whether I have hurt someone unintentionally. To me, that is the most important point (hurting someone). Whether it is intentional or not then becomes interesting to look at. With me, it was unintentional or a better word would be unconscious.

When I really began to consider if it was intentional, it was a place I didn't want to go. I "thought" I was being direct. I like people to be direct with me and so I figured this applied to most. So basically, I was projecting the behavior I wanted to receive onto others and in doing so hurting them.

What really hurt to realize was the amount of hurt I was potentially causing. What I came to see was that while directness in itself is not wrong - we try to be as honest and clear as we can - I could be stifling the growth of others (perhaps they would feel rejected and not want to continue or they would be reacting so emotionally to what was said that they couldn't take in what was being said to them).

The fear of being wrong runs rampant with narcissistically wounded people and is quite a challenge to tackle. I think you're on the right track. This is one of the reasons we have the network, so that others can point out our mistakes. We cannot see everything. Unfortunately much of our learning has to come through what we perceive as hard knocks.

I would just add that it really helps to take extra time when posting. If you're wrong, you're wrong. All we can do is try to do better the next time. Being aware of how we're feeling as we're posting helps us to focus on what our intention is when we post. As for giving incorrect information, that just happened to me yesterday. It happens! Accept it with grace and see it as an opportunity to learn. As you can see from that link, we all learn from each other. It's not just teachers teaching students, but rather goes in all directions and continuously. I like that. :) It keeps us humble and those who are willing to see it that way and use discernment when taking in new information - in a constant school. Or so I think. ;)

And

Citation de: EmeraldHope le septembre 07, 2010, 08:15:46 am

obyvatel,

For what it is worth, if you would have just said that I would have understood you, and could have at least looked at it from that angle. From the example of this thread, I can only say that if there is something that one does not see in oneself, if someone is being vague in pointing out something, I do not think one is going to guess what they mean. I re-read this interaction several times trying to get it.

I understood Laura on her 2nd teacher point right off the bat, the first one of "struggling to maintain it", I had to to really think on all day to grok it. But I got it.

In my mind, that wasn't what I was trying to do at all. Like I said, I thought I was being objective.

truth seeker:
I wouldn't call it vagueness so much but rather treading carefully. Because of the narcissistic wounding we all have, it can be a very difficult task to correct someone. We try to post in a manner that meets each person where we think they are in their understanding at that point in time. Where they are can change from moment to moment.

In terms of rereading a post - sometimes that is necessary in order to foster progress. This can apply to some of the material on this forum. In my experience so far, there are at least two levels of understanding when reading - the intellectual understanding of something which can occur on the first (or 5th or more) reading and the emotional understanding. The emotional understanding, speaking for myself, occurred after a time when one takes a leap of faith and begins to apply what is intellectually understood. This is a truer understanding of the material that happens when one really starts to get it. They feel it in their marrow so to speak. I don't believe there is a time limit on any of this so try to be patient with yourself. :)

Regarding objectivity - This is the trap we all fall into! This is why we can't think with the way we think. For the most part, we cannot trust our thoughts because very often they are not our own. It may be quite easy to think we are helping others when in reality we are harming them. This can be because we are really acting from our programs which are a lie. Therefore we are giving false information to others unwittingly. The person we are attempting to help may then respond with their own set of programs (which is also a lie) and round and round we go.

In seeing yourself as a teacher, this automatically puts everyone else in the position of student. If everyone else is a student, this means that there is no one for you to learn from. There is no balance and your own opportunities to learn are squandered. This puts both the "teacher" and the "student" at a grave disadvantage. Neither can learn nor teach. The teacher can never learn anything new because they believe no one can teach them and the students can only go so far because the teacher never learns anything new. Both believe the lie that the teacher knows it all. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As we begin to realize that we are all in this together and here to help each other as well as be helped, this provides the opportunity for everyone to learn and progress. Hope that helps. :)

 

[Neil]

I've seen both sides of this spectrum in relation to being "attacked" in relation to the Work. At one end you have people like Anart, who ruthlessly question anyone who deviates from a certain generally agreed upon knowledge, and on the other end you have people like Carla Rueckert and the bring 4th forum, who basically allow anything to go, as long as it isn't overtly pathological. Anart's methods, while excellent for smashing sacred cows and preventing wiseacring, had a rigidity that basically confined discussions to certain safe topics unless you were a "senior member" and you spent a lot of time wondering whether your post would be worthwhile in terms of possibly getting into her way. On the other side, the bring 4th forum is similar in subject matter and layout to this one, and many philosophical viewpoints are discussed, but since no one wants to be considered STS by putting their foot down on things that seem a bit sketchy, everyone just sort of puts in their opinion and reaches a general consensus that makes everyone else feel good. This is particularly evident in their Diet & Health board.

It could be said that the first method has no heart while the second method has no brains. Anart's method of teaching allows you to do a certain amount of work, but it is limited in it's range of applicability and results in a crystallization on a wrong foundation, in my opinion. The Carla approach allows you to talk all about the Work without actually doing it, because you never really have to define truth from falsehood; it is all sort of a warm and fuzzy coexistence.

I think when we talk about having a school, most people get this prosaic mental image of rolling university lawns and hallowed buildings. I don't think people realize that we are in a literal war, a war for minds and souls between 4D STS and STO, which is being fought through our thoughts. This is more like a battle school that must produce warriors that have a chance of winning the war, otherwise we will spend another 309,000 years in a more or less hopeless situation. Once you see that is the underlying truth behind our reality at the moment, and I mean REALLY see it, the attitude that is taken by the moderators of this forum makes a lot more sense. It must be quite a feat to split the difference between Anart and Carla, and come up with a system that has both brains and heart.

In the thought war, one must be packed with truths, a clear way of expressing them, and a coherent way of applying them in order to defend against enemy attacks and move into the reality that is desired. The truths are like bullets, clarity is like the gun, and application like tactics to win the battle. In this fanciful example, we could imagine that 4D STS is guarding a portal that we are trying to get to, whatever that may be, and they've got us pinned down in a trench with all manner of suppressive fire and rocket propelled grenades and so forth. We need to clear them out, or cause enough damage to get them to move out of the way.

Now this is where apraxad comes in. Imagine the logistics guy comes in to restock your weapons supply and he shows up with two cases of guns. In one case is modern sniper rifles, and in another case is a musket, which isn't really designed for the munitions you have, is very inaccurate and slow, but can fire off a few shots in a pinch. The musket can achieve greater effectiveness if one learns how to compensate for its inaccuracy, and loads it in a peculiar way which increases its rate of fire. Conversely, the sniper rifle works straight out of the box as long as you know how to shoot. Now if you are in an actual physical war, which gun are you going to choose?

Blavatsky's very verbose, convoluted, and obscure way of revealing truths is like the musket. It can be made to work by a superior weapons master, but it's still an inferior weapon. We're all wanting the modern gun that is sleek and dependable, but he keeps pushing the musket on us. In a battle, he would be relieved of duty because this could possibly cause the battle to be lost...

The soldiers do not have time to sit around the weapons tent and discuss the nostalgia of days when the battles were fought with muskets, they need to fight. While there is occasionally a break in the action that allows for idle chitchat to relieve the tension, there is not a lot of that. So that analogy is kind of where I see things in regard to these theosophy threads.

 

[luke wilson]

To carry the musket/sniper analogy further, in the 'war', every person is needed, by definition it cannot be won by a single individual or a subset of individuals, it's through all of us, it's through the human race - a war of minds and souls. Conversely, you hear it the other way round, how we got here to begin with, the Cs say, 'we' fell, they don't say so and so or a subset fell and dragged everyone down. It was collective and I assume if it were ever possible to get out of it, it would be a collective effort. When they will say you rose up, they won't say, so and so rose the whole of humanity up, sure, you will always have people who lead or have additional extra qualities, but it will always be that you 'all' rose. There is that collective element, OSIT.

And as in any 'war', there are multiple divisions that specialise in multiple different proficiencies. As long as each one contributes something towards the overall aim, towards the overall goal and doesn't take away from it, then it can only be a good thing. If the guy holding that musket can't handle a sniper rifle, and if he is proficient at using that musket, and if he isn't telling other people to put down their sniper rifles (which they've learnt to use) to take up the musket (which they don't see the point off), then for that individual, if after being told all he needs to know, he still chooses the musket because that's all he knows how to use, then well, the musket it is for him then! He best be a very good musketeer and if he is and it works for him, it keeps him alive on the field of battle, then good on him! Having the best sniper rifle out there doesn't guarantee anything if you can't use it. However, undoubtedly, between a musket and a sniper rifle, the sniper is obviously better! But it does come down to the individual and their proficiency.

Just playing around with the analogy. :)

 

[sitting]

It must be quite a feat to split the difference between Anart and Carla, and come up with a system that has both brains and heart.

My comment may be very unfair as she's no longer here to respond. But I have never associated Anart with "brains." Nor had I ever considered her a true "teacher," in any way, shape, or form.

It was my opinion then -- it is my opinion now. Even if I feel a bit uneasy presently, speaking in her absence.

FWIW.

 

[Laura]

It must be quite a feat to split the difference between Anart and Carla, and come up with a system that has both brains and heart.

My comment may be very unfair as she's no longer here to respond. But I have never associated Anart with "brains." Nor had I ever considered her a true "teacher," in any way, shape, or form.

It was my opinion then -- it is my opinion now. Even if I feel a bit uneasy presently, speaking in her absence.

FWIW.

You are right, though.

 

[Aeneas]

To carry the musket/sniper analogy further, in the 'war', every person is needed, by definition it cannot be won by a single individual or a subset of individuals, it's through all of us, it's through the human race - a war of minds and souls. Conversely, you hear it the other way round, how we got here to begin with, the Cs say, 'we' fell, they don't say so and so or a subset fell and dragged everyone down. It was collective and I assume if it were ever possible to get out of it, it would be a collective effort. When they will say you rose up, they won't say, so and so rose the whole of humanity up, sure, you will always have people who lead or have additional extra qualities, but it will always be that you 'all' rose. There is that collective element, OSIT.

And as in any 'war', there are multiple divisions that specialise in multiple different proficiencies. As long as each one contributes something towards the overall aim, towards the overall goal and doesn't take away from it, then it can only be a good thing. If the guy holding that musket can't handle a sniper rifle, and if he is proficient at using that musket, and if he isn't telling other people to put down their sniper rifles (which they've learnt to use) to take up the musket (which they don't see the point off), then for that individual, if after being told all he needs to know, he still chooses the musket because that's all he knows how to use, then well, the musket it is for him then! He best be a very good musketeer and if he is and it works for him, it keeps him alive on the field of battle, then good on him! Having the best sniper rifle out there doesn't guarantee anything if you can't use it. However, undoubtedly, between a musket and a sniper rifle, the sniper is obviously better! But it does come down to the individual and their proficiency.

Just playing around with the analogy. :)

I agree Luke and I highlighted one sentence as it appears that Arpaxad is not happy just to play with his musket, but wants everybody else to use the musket. It is his choice if he wishes to find wisdom for himself in Theosophy and the whole Blavatsky thing and persue that direction, but it would also be a sign of respect if he stopped starting threads and making posts all over the place regarding that topic. Especially since it has been discussed here on the Forum and since his cup appears to be full and he hasn't shown signs of having read the other threads that he has been directed to.

At a certain point it just becomes noise without any signal.