Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00064)

Dec 14th 1997

Dear Mark:

I think I am misunderstood.  I did not mean to imply that "evil" was
"divine."

That would be saying "black:" is "white," etc... and contrast of any kind
is invalid.

No.  But what I do mean is based on the following observation, admittedly
metaphysical:

1.	A common SOURCE from which the contrasts of "spirit" and "matter" emerge
during "manifestations."  It is also that same SOURCE which, at the end of
any manifestation serves as the "resting place" between that ending and the
fresh beginning.  [ Analogous to sleeping and waking activities in daily
life; sleeping, allowing the body to refresh its vigor through rest.]

IT (the SOURCE) is always there as a "background," regardless of
"beginning," or antiquity; extent (in present, or past, or future "space");
 or any forward, or conceivable "end."

Illimitable and undeniable would be terms applied to IT.  It is not "a
God," but the term "Deity," might tentatively be applied towards it without
allowing the idea to limit IT.  [ I think the best definition is early on
in the SECRET DOCTRINE, where Mme. Blavatsky defines the " Three
Fundamentals,'  Vol. 1, pp. 14 - 18. ]  The term "NATURE" would then be
applied to any given period of manifestation, or the interaction of the 3
aspects of this ONE SOURCE:  Spirit, Matter, and Mind.  "Unity is the
fundamental "dogma" of Occultism "[ SD, I -- p. 58 ]
.
Having spoken of this we have to pass into periods of limited life and
activity, which as a "catch-all" one can term "Manifestation," or
"Evolutionary periods," or Manvantaras.  Theosophy envisages a vast host of
diverse beings making up the Unity of such periods, and furnishing each to
the other the necessary field for individual evolution -- a concept that
accounts for the desire to grow, to learn, to improve over what one has
already learned or experienced. [ Reverse this, and you have immobility,
inertia, "death," decay, sickness, error, and utter selfishness or
isolation. ]

2.	"SPIRIT" ought, by agreement, to include all information, knowledge,
data concerning intelligence, consciousness, memory of experience, laws of
relationship, -- in short the whole of the "facts of existence" and all
"life," without any limitation in terms of time or space.

Eternity and immortality would have to be "givens."  Just as the atom of
Science is considered to be a perpetual motion machine, the beginnings and
endings of which are conjectural and indefinable.  We perceive only the
middle stage of its "being here."

All the laws of relationship appear to be based on the relationships of
these smallest of the "substances of nature."  [ Of course there is
evidence for the 'sub-atomic" so what we have called atoms for the past 100
years in Science are themselves divisible.  The SD says ( I - p. 520) that
the whole of occultism is based on the infinite divisibility of the atom. ]

In terms of "morals" or "ethics," real understanding would be based on
those universal, impersonal and totally just LAWS that govern all
relationships with equality in any Universe.  This particular area is
generally covered under the terms of psychology and philosophy.  And then
there is the chaotic area where the facts and causes of human action and
motivation draw widely interpretative theories in abundance.

A study of Theosophical ideas does help in getting these sorted out, so
that the conflicting concepts of say "Krishnamurti, Hegel or Jung," etc...
can be reconciled with great ease.  I am trying to put forward the simple
concepts which lead to this reconciliation here.  To me it is unimportant
as to "who" has said what -- as their logic and reasoning has to be grasped
before they are employed as 'authorities.  and, of course the same
criterion has to be equally applied to what Mme. Blavatsky, or Buddha, or
Krishna say in their statements concerning Nature and the beings living in
it.  Theosophy is to be as severely cross-examined as any other set of
concepts.

To perceive these requires MINDS.  Or those aspects of evolutionary
"success" (or level of perfection) which form the corps of "graduates" from
the educational scheme that the Universe in manifestation represents as a
whole.  From this concept arises the idea of Sages, Masters of Wisdom,
Magi, and other terms ( corresponding to the idea of the Professors in a
vast University that embraces the Cosmos ), and denoting achievement in the
many realms of learning.

3.  	MATTER consists of all the myriad of "forms." of beings in
manifestation.  Consider our surroundings: Earth, Water, Air and Fire the
old alchemists and Fire Philosophers, heirs of the Hermetists and the
Rishis of India would say.  Any kind of substance has associated with it
the properties of some kind of power, or force which inheres in its
"being."  Some of these are "visible" or tangible, and some are not, until
special conditions render them perceptible to us.

So we have as matter the various substances that Science examines.  The
interaction of intelligence and consciousness which those who examine,
plants, animals, and humans examine and seek to develop explanations for
their "behavior."

"Nature contains all."  And Science examines it.  It depends on Law for
this -- a consistency which some deny when confronted with human
psychology.  It depends on continuity, and the expectation that the
qualities and properties of various aspects of matter, and the beings that
use it remain consistent over a sufficiently long period so that some
conclusions can be reached that are valid in TIME.

4.	MIND as said above ranges from the intelligence innate in the Nature's
smallest building blocks, call it the "life-atom," or MONAD and ascribe to
it the idea of its eternal existence.  Also consider that it has the power
of recording all its experiences, and from those it gradually acquires
increasing individuality and the powers of sensitivity, intelligence in an
increasing scale.  It may be easy then, to see that from the atom to the
intelligence that organizes a crystal, or a plant or that drives animal
instinct is a crescendo of learning.  From animal instinct to human
ratiocination is a large gap that is filled from time to time by the
donation of the faculty of the mind -- the daily process of a babe
learning from its parents and elders. The processes of school and college, are too
well know to have to be repeated.  With the individualization of the mind
it is assumed that the moral concepts of individual rights (which are to be
respected) and of cooperation are also burned deep into the consciousness
of the growing intelligence.  These are the presumptions of statutory as
well as "common law" law in all countries.

Your brief comment would seem to place the contrast of pride, selfishness,
disruption and exaggerated individualism as necessary.  Are they ?  Or are
they the result of an unbridled an ungoverned exuberation of the desire
nature which we inherit from our experience with the consciousness of the
instinctual animal ?

One of the faculties, qualities and determinants of the right to be "human"
and to employ a quasi independent "mind," is to learn to control the desire
and instinctive nature, to regulate these in terms of the great harmony of
Nature that we perceive around us.  If we examine this carefully we will
perceive that the necessity of cooperation alone furnishes the environment
for all to live in together.  Ecology and Economics both teach this in
their area of consideration, and the concept of morals and ethics is
derived from that.

Now I may we wrong in some of the ideas I advance, and perhaps too lengthy
in explanation, but I hope that I have made myself at least, clearer.

I will welcome any comments on this from you or our co-readers.

							Dallas

> From: "Mark Kusek" <mark@withoutwalls.com>
> Subject: Re: Krishnamurti, Jung, Hegel and conflict
> Date: Saturday, December 13, 1997 2:37 PM
>
> >Dallas wrote:
> >
> >Why not simplify ?
> >
> >If we may agree, most broadly, that this Universe is embodied LAW, that
is,  our existence ?
> <snip>
>
> I would hesitate to say that. In my view the forces that create egotism,
> pride, selfishness, separation, etc. are all divine, completely natural
> and evolutionarily intended. I would rather accept and try to understand
> them. That's a personal choice. Its OK to be human.
>
> Mark
>