Soul of Wit

2004-8-20 06:03:00

Robert,
You remind me of my late brother-in-law. He's the only person I have met who has been able to get me to "cry uncle" in an argument. This is different than getting the best of another in an argument, a thing which he was unable to do, but he did manage to wear me down.

Here's the way it went. I would bring up a point of doctrine that ran contrary to his church doctrine and quoted him a scripture as evidence. Instead of avoiding me as most family members do (regarding discussing religion) he would kindly take me on.

He would state that I was taking the scripture out of context and bring out the good book and open it. If I quoted verse twenty in a chapter of 40 verses he would begin reading at the first verse and analyzing it in detail. After a couple hours we would reach verse 6 or 7 with him analyzing each in detail. So far verses 1-7 had nothing to do with the meaning of verse 20, but he was undaunted and was determined to continue.

It was about this point that I excused myself and visited with someone else or changed the subject to something simple like nuclear physics. (He was a nuclear physicist).

The feeling I get with you is similar to that experienced with my brother-in-law. I give out a couple sentences to provoke thought or make a quote or two and you seek to overwhelm me by the sheer volume of your words - far to many to comment on in this forum.

Some are growing impatient with me forwarding your posts, not only because they are negative, but because they are too long for busy people to read.

I passed this last post, but if you want to insure others get passed you need to do three things.

(1) Discuss or argue what I have said, not with that which I do not say. (2) Try and be a bit more concise. Brevity is the soul of wit - and gaining interest. Cease trying to wear us down with volume of words and long quotes. (3) Try to find something you agree with once in a while and add to rather than only be a negative force that subtracts.

That said I will give brief comments on a couple items.

Robert:
In the quote DK spoke about the many "septenary lives" - meaning; the lives utilizing the septenary of rays as a personality ray.

JJ:
But that is not what he said. He was talking about cyclic manifestation of rays into 49 groups on the third subplane, but "septenary lives" is different than septenary rays. Septenary lives would mean seven lives or cycles of lives, plane and simple and his statement "In the course of his many septenary lives" tells us he is talking about many groupings of seven lives - not seven rays. The word "life" has different meaning than "ray."

This is his obvious meaning unless the writing did not come out as he intended.

Robert:
That term is about the personality ray and not about incarnations as male and female, nor can a rightly applied analogy be made.

JJ:
He doesn't say it is about the personality ray. My point was not that the septenary lives referred to was about being male or female, but that he was affirming the basic principle that there are cycles of seven lives. He was probably referring to this as a general principle without being specific.

If life manifests through the energy of the rays through a septenary principle then it is logical that this could be applied to other energies.

Robert:
DK tells us that the individual on the Path "begins to synthesize and merge the seven into the major three subrays" and not into three male lives and three female lives.

JJ:
This is not related to anything I have said.

Robert:
The quote is about rays, nor can there be made an accurate correspondence to seven male lives/seven female lives. When this process of ray synthesizing begins, Man enters the Path and this process "governs the time up till the third Initiation.". Thirdly, "He achieves the unity of his Ray by the fifth Initiation, and is then consciously a part of the body of the Heavenly Man."

JJ:
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Robert:
Notice that He is actually talking about the rays. The high water mark occurring "every seven cycles" is about cyclic ray energy - not about male-female energy - not about 7 male lives and 7 female lives -

JJ:
Knock, knock. I did not say it was about male-female energy.

Let me quote again: "Under the particular type of cyclic force emanating from the Lodge, the high water mark of its activity is to be found once in every seven cycles."

My point is that the cycle of seven keeps showing up again and again in relation to energy.

Robert:
nor can a correct correspondence be made.

JJ:
You give no intelligent reason why not. The cycle of seven repeats itself in "lives" energy, ray manifestation etc. Name an energy that is not effected by the cycle of seven.

JJ:
Then he states: "Cyclic appearance, therefore, governs the rays as well as the Kingdoms in nature and the forms contained therein. It determines the activity of God Himself. Races incarnate, disappear and reincarnate, and so do all lives in form. Reincarnation or cyclic activity lies behind all phenomenal activity and appearance." Esoteric Psychology Vol 1 Pg 267 That last sentence just about clinches my point.

To this Robert responded:
No. It does not clinch your point - not even close. How about we all read the section where JJ quoted from and see what DK is actually talking about

JJ:
Then he gives a long quote that does not refute my point indicating that the rays manifest in cycles.

Robert:
If it were true, "as a general rule", which JJ claims, that the soul incarnates in a cycle of seven lives male and seven lives female - DK would have mentioned it - even briefly.

JJ:
DK did not mention UFO's, but I know you believe in them. Why do you believe such when DK did not even briefly mention something so important?

Keep in mind that the teaching in question is about cycles of seven lives which can manifest as seven or more lives.

Robert:
Likewise, I have continued to point out that the Law of Correspondence cannot be applied to the Law of Cycles for the purpose of validating your theory.

JJ:
So, the Law of Correspondences works for whatever you want to teach, but if I teach a principle then it is completely unrelated to it and cannot be proved or disproved by using it?

I don't think so. The Law of Correspondences can be used to give credibility to any teaching.

Whenever DK speaks of energy he talks about cycles of seven in relation to it. There is no energy in our world which is not effected by these septenary cycles - especially the most basic energy in the universe - positive and negative.

It takes little intelligence to destroy and find fault, but it takes strength of character to build, and to reveal that which is inspired requires a holy focus on the good, the beautiful and the true.