Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00037)

Dear Friend Henx:

Perhaps the analogy of our own experience as children will help
to give you an idea of what I meant.  From our earliest days in
this life we have had both "order," and "disorder." Or, to put it
in general terms we have had "Law," and we have had apparent
"Chaos." As thinking, intelligent and as "Mind-beings" we are
able to see both.  But which is the larger ? Which constructs,
and which destroys ? Does the Universe live and grow becaus of
chaos or because of laws ?

When we were children and went to school we were offered the
chance to learn much.  Is the opportunity given to us because of
laws or chaos? As children we were ignorant of many details, but
those who are more experienced (the teachers and our parents, and
other friends in school, or adults) show us certain facts and
realities, which we could adopt for our use, and.  or prove for
ourselves.  Again, is this Law or is it Chaos ?

Mathematics, arithmetic, geometry, drawing, painting, playing
music, writing poetry, may be some of the talents that are the
easiest to consider.  And again we observe that these arts and
skills operate under laws of their own and those laws harmonize
with the rest of the laws that rule our world and Universe.

For the average person some of these may be more or less
difficult.  some have a talent for them and draw, paint, sing or
play music with great ease.

Other struggle to learn and to copy.  Other give up such effort
in disgust or in disinterest, and some show they are too lazy to
make much effort unless they are goaded to do so--usually by
punishments.  But why are children put under compulsion ? What do
adults know that children need to learn ? Why are some children
very obediant and others are quite unruly and independent ?

Those who learn the most are those who are dilligent to pick up
all they can, and try, and struggle to learn the most.  Those who
are bored or are lazy seem to fall into a general category of
mediocrity, or of apathy.  But strange to note most of this class
turn out in later life to be quite "successful" in whatever field
of work they enter.  Some of the brilliant ones are not good
businessmen and seem to fail in securing good positions or
wealth, and so on there are many variants to be noticed, not only
in childhood, but in later life.  But, should not the causes for
these differences be looked for, as they are resident in the
consciousness, in the character, and in the capacity of those
persons?

No one questions the Individuality of any one.  What may come
into question is the way in which the person behaves, either in
public or in secret.  The laws of each country seem to be almost
the same everywhere, as they demand honesty and fairness in
dealing between people, regardless of birth or talent.  [ There
are some places where the rules of community life, and/or
religion, and the hatreds or the past are brought forward and
taught to children, so that revenge and other prejudices are
instilled into the innocent minds of children, as "differences"
between people, which, when they are investigated, are found to
be unimportant.  But for some they remain as biases or prejudices
which are difficult to get rid of.  ]

Next is the question of talent, or capacity to learn.  Some love
to learn and others are bored or want to play instead of
learning.  And a few already know inside themselves the subject
that is being taught.  Why all these differences, unless those
are considered as possible evidence of previous experience --
perhaps of their being learned in an earlier life?

Is this not some part of the evidence that there is in each of us
one aspect of our nature which is ideal, wise, permanent, and
another aspect which has various developing capacities and can be
taught ?

When we say or think of "WE," we may mean either the wise aspect
of ourselves, or the confused and ignorant aspect of ourselves.
Both are mental conditions, and when we are faced with some
important choices we realise we have not always got at hand the
kind of knowledge that is necessary to decide them with ease.
Both the laws of our coutry and whatever religion we are brought
up in, speak to us of ideals, of ethics, of morality and of
"doing the right thing." There is the golden rule that is spoken
of: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." If we can
focus on this last idea, then many problems get resolved.

Often we are afraid to speak boldly the truth and ask for
assitance or the generosity of our opponents.  But, surprisingly,
when one tries to do this with determined and quiet persistence,
we are able to resolve difficult problems because we appeal to
that which is wise in both of us.

Some can draw, or paint, or write, or play music with great ease,
and others find it very difficult.  Some can carve in wood or
stone or shape sand to make "castles," etc...  , and others have
no sense of size or shape or direction.  Some know where the
North, South, East and West are without difficulty, and others
cannot follow simple directions.

Have you ever taught yourself a skill ? Look at typewriting -- it
is a skill that has to be learned, so that the fingers remember
what keys to strike even if the eyes are not looking at those
keys.  Or, playing a piano -- it is the same thing.  Does it not
take effort ? First you have to desire it, and then you have to
find something that will teach you--a book or a person -- in any
case, someone who has already mastered the skill that you desire
to learn and use.  Then you have to practice until your mind and
your body will react with almost automatic ease.  We all have
experience of this.

Now can we not apply this to the question of general chaos or law
? If so many things in our life run by law, why should we even
think of chaos ? Instead of "chaos" can we use the words
"confusion," or "ignorance ?" Because once that we acquire the
knowledge that can explain the problem, the "chaos" vanishes, as
we begin to see something that includes it in its greater law !

To answer your final observations: "Why are we not perfect ?" Is
this "perfection" not something we have to learn ? Is it not a
"skill" which we acquire by desiring it, by finding the rules and
laws that quide us to it, and finally by applying those rules and
laws.  And does this "perfection" not imply that we have to learn
the nature of the Unity of the Laws of the Universe, and how
everything harmonizes with other things.  We find out that we are
not totally isolated.  That brotherhood is a fact.  then when we
make ourselves unable to hurt others the great wisdom of Nature
can be made available to us.

We spoke earlier in this answer of there being two aspect, or two
sides to Man's mind.  One is the IDEAL, and the other is THE
LEARNER.  These two often speak to each other.  The Ideal seems
to be able to speak of principles and fairness and law.  The
Learner, being somewhat ignorant, and very self-centered, tries
to arrange all circumstances in its favor without considering the
needs and rights of other people.

Theosophy points to the great law of our brotherhood, because we
are all children of the same One Life, of SPIRIT, in our Ideal
nature.  As persons, as learners, we sense that this is
important, but also very restricting to our ideas of pleasure,
amusement and leisure.  Here is where the real conflict lies.

We are the choosers and we grow wise by choice.  We have to
decide what is the most valuable direction to go.  No one else
can do this for us.

And no God can cause a miracle to occur simply because we praise
Him or Her, or pray, or say "I am sorry."

Before any adjustment can be made for our benefit, the ill or
hurt we may have given to others will have to smoothed out.  We
will have to work to redress that hurt or evil.  And, we alone,
are the ones who will have to do that.

Nature is true and honest, and the first lesson we have to learn
as "eternal pilgrims" is that we have to voluntarily be true,
free, and honest at all times whether in public or in private.
That is the sure path to "perfection."

It is a simple idea and not a prospect which will hurt us or
anyone else.

It is the practice of brotherhood for, and to all

I hope these few rather basic ideas will show what my earler
statements were based on.

Best wishes,  Dallas