Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the by, ukrkoz, who was the sage you quoted above (not parroted of course).
You seem to have a conventional, uninspired view of self. As if whatever thought appears to you originates within your mind. Might as well claim the air in the lungs as Mine or the sight the eyes see as My sight or the sounds heard by My ears as My sounds.
I am not a sage, but part of my mind resonates to those who are sages, so I often quote my spiritual betters. Why you would prefer (even if it were possible) to read only My words beats me.
Could you even be sure that My words are original and cut off from any supposed outside influence?
Modesty regarding one's spiritual insights, if not humility, is good and helpful.
Correct. But when one sees repetitive c/p of others quotes, not even always appropriate or making much sense, one will wonder how original thinking behind it is. Logically.
Self is very conventional and very simple. There is no mystery in it. To one who understands the mechanism of Self.
Thoughts do not originate in mind.
There is really no such thing, as mind. There is process of consciousness moving in mental atmosphere, resulting in activity referred to as mind. So it is actually minding, as a process, not a mind as "object".
I'd be proud is someone were attracted to my words.
Child, look within and unify yourself. Although you may not realize it, you are consciousness-expanding. If you have never experienced this harmonizing on a cosmic scale, it can be difficult to believe. Reality has always been full of pilgrims whose dreams are immersed in sharing. We are at a crossroads of truth and suffering. We are in the midst of a non-local blossoming of interconnectedness that will align us with the multiverse itself.
Here's M Blavatski:
The power to know does not come from book-study nor from mere philosophy, but mostly from the actual practice of altruism in deed, word, and thought; for that practice purifies the covers of the soul and permits that light to shine down into the brain-mind. As the brain-mind is the receiver in the waking state, it has to be purified from sense-perception, and the truest way to do this is by combining philosophy with the highest outward and inward virtue.
If one is to read both "wisdoms" unbiased, one will find them very similar. In style. In vagueness not easily grasped by a lay mind. Both sounding very intelligent and spiritual. And so on.
This is why I asked - did you catch the gist of the message posted?
Simple answer is - no. MOF, there is no much sense in M.B. message either.
It's pseudo intellectual BS, a chew gum for fearing intellectualist mind, desperately seeking answer to the primary fear and, being intellectual mind, the vague-er it is, the more making sense it appears. The more appeal it has. If I can't understand it but it is said by a generally accepted wise person, that it is an ultimate wisdom, I am a moron, but I can't accept that I am, so I'll pretend that it is a great wisdom and I am drooling over the depths of it.
Dear Mahayan, I played a practical joke on you. Just to show you value of your independent thinking. "The second sage" quote is from New Age BS generator.
Quote value is ZIP, nilch, zero. But "enough to read more", right?
Maybe this will open your eyes?
There is no truth but one that YOU find.
As Gautam said : Be ye the lamps onto yourselves.
I am not apologizing.
In order to take effect
The truth must penetrate like an arrow
And that is likely to hurt.
What a silly creature ukrkoz seems. I was being polite re your quote, mainly wanting to know the source of the quote. Now I know.
Unfortunately, for your diligent effort to cause me pain and thus follow your advice - not happening. No pain, just a little sadness at your fierce self-cherishing. Typical of many.
Has mankind become less vicious and selfish since Blavatsky's era?
In my opinion I think that it really hasn't changed that much. Yes, there is more concern for the environment in todays world, but human relations are still lacking, what we need is a good dose of tolerance in this world.
From one of the wisest authors I've ever encountered:
Quote:
I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Theosophy as Blavatsky presented it, was focused on noble ethics, altruism and working for Universal Brotherhood. Here is a keynote of the movement, from an 1888 letter of hers:
Quote:
The tendency of modern civilization is a reaction towards animalism, towards a development of those qualities which conduce to the success in life of man as an animal in the struggle for animal existence. Theosophy seeks to develop the human nature in man in addition to the animal, and at the sacrifice of the superfluous animality which modern life and materialistic teachings have developed to a degree which is abnormal for the human being at this stage of his progress.
The essence of Theosophy is the perfect harmonizing of the divine with the human in man, the adjustment of his god-like qualities and aspirations, and their sway over the terrestrial or animal passions in him. Kindness, absence of every ill feeling or selfishness, charity, goodwill to all beings, and perfect justice to others as to oneself, are its chief features. He who teaches Theosophy preaches the gospel of goodwill; and the converse of this is true also — he who preaches the gospel of goodwill, teaches Theosophy.
I went through my short-lived Theosophy phase, in which I actually read Isis Unveiled (which is more than most self-proclaimed Theosophists can say) and, as I always do, studied the history and personalities of the movement since this is always a large clue to a movement's validity. Ditto for Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, whose teachings did not resonate with me at all but are regarded as the real deal by some really respected philosophers like Jacob Needleman. I started Needleman's What Is God? with great anticipation but was astonished to discover his respect for Gurdjieff. A fascinating book - understandably not popular with Theosophists - is Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: A History of the Mystics, Mediums, and Misfits Who Brought Spiritualism to America, https://www.amazon.com/Madame-Blavat.../dp/0805210245. Mahayana has previously taken me to task for daring to suggest that Richard Hodgson of the Society for Psychical Research exposed Madame Blavatsky as a fraud, and I will concede that many years later the SPR did distance itself from his methods and conclusions, but overall I think you'd have to take Theosophy with a grain of salt even if you regard the teachings as profound. Hey, some people actually benefit from Scientology, too. I am always looking for the Truth, not whatever will get me through the night.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
