Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00068)

> Dallas wrote:

  <snip>
> Now I may be 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.
  <snip>

Geez Dallas, get a publisher, will ya! ;-)

> 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.

I think we're both a little misunderstood and that the areas that we
actually overlap here are pretty small. I've read the books, you don't
have to cramp your fingers typing all this background info for me. I
agree. ;p

If you want to get metaphysical, I would ask you a simple question. In
your understanding of things, are the terms "evil" and "divine"
opposites? Because in my view they are not. I understand, the "divine "
as absolute and containing in potentia all pairs of possible opposites;
resolving them into one common source which periodically manifests a
universe through the interplay between them. To me, good and evil are
indeed divine, as are all other possible contrasts. I know that is a
hard pill to swallow. It's the paradox of Tai Chi in Tao. Is it One or
is it Two? It's both and neither. In that sense 'black is white and
white is black'. The apparent disharmony is the harmony. Contrast is
valid for the whole manvantara, while the absolute remains unstained.

> 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 and ungoverned exuberation of the desire
> nature which we inherit from our experience with the consciousness of the
> instinctual animal ?

Ok, here's where I can get at what I meant. I do indeed see them as
necessary, even while in part, they owe their presence in us to our
animal ancestry (which, in my view, is also a necessary good).

If we believe the theosophical history of life in this solar system, and
of this Earth globe in particular, then we have to admit that the
evolution of lifewaves through all of the kingdoms (mineral, plant,
animal, human and beyond, etc) proceeds according to divine ideation.
The fact that all of these kingdoms were formed and continue to be
evolved by guidance from LAW-abiding hierarchies sanctions them. They
are "good" in the sense that they serve to accomplish the divine
evolutionary intent.

I see the whole process of creating and nurturing the human kingdom to
be just a part of the plan. We cannot get from being animals to the next
superhuman kingdom without passing through the human range of existence
and experiencing it to its full course. Along the way we acquired (or
were given) Egoic Mind. This self-consciously individualizes and
personalizes us. Because of the apparent split in Manas between the
lower and higher, we need to evolve through "pride, selfishness and
[exaggerated] personal individualism, with all the attendant thoughts
and emotions" before we can even begin to bridge the gap
self-consciously and experience the first real glimmers of identity in
the upper triad. There are lessons to be learned that apparently can't
be learned any other way. For this reason I am of the attitude that
"it's OK to be human." I embrace it, affirm it and try to accept and
understand all that it means.

Sure we have desire, anger, lust, juicy, sexy passions, violence, the
whole lot. But we also have much more. I say "yes" to the whole thing. I
will not disdain the fruit of divine evolution. It is my inheritance.
It's OK to be a person. Its OK to have an ego. Its OK to feel the
apparent boundary of your human selfhood [self-ish-ness]. It's OK to
feel your feelings and think your thoughts. This is all OK. It's
intended. Without it we couldn't function in this world. We couldn't
evolve. We couldn't cognize or subscribe to these teaching or put them
into any practical use. We also simply can't avoid it.

The thing that bothers me is that I see various religious, New Age and
philosophical groups sometimes subtly teach their members to hate
themselves, disdain their own personal ego, and deny the feeling nature
for fear of it. This is nothing but a lack of understanding and a
fearful attempt at control. Acceptance, understanding, compassion and
love are much more effective at attaining the goal. Why destroy a
person's self-esteem and set up agonizing internal psychological
conflicts? We need our men to be men and our women to be women.

If someone comes seeking, they should be expected to be selfish,
personal, emotional, etc.
Give them love. Tell them its OK. Educate them to true self-acceptance
and understanding. (Don't ever forget that the astral body, as fearful
as most theosophists seem to be of it), is in reality the vehicle of
Buddhi in its upper regions and has a direct correspondence to the
causal body through emotions of love.

I'm rambling. Now I need a publisher!

> 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.

Yes, and for me, wise love is the governor.
Sorry for being such a windbag!

Mark

>> 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