Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00140)

> Dallas writes:
>
> Interesting points of view.   Are there two "Egos" in Man, or is there
> one Consciousness with two or three, or maybe several more "points of view?"

Jesus said "The Father works in me and I work" while Buddha denied that
there
was any real Ego at all.
Go figure. If all things resolve into One, what does the One resolve
into?

> Theosophy does point out {SD I 181} that there are 3 lines of evolution
> intermingled in humankind.
>
> 1. The "spiritual" or MONADIC (Atma-Buddhi) -- which presumably is wise
> with the collective wisdom of TIME and EXPERIENCE, if it is granted that it
> is an immortal.
>
> 2. The "Intellectual" -- which HPB in the KEY (p. 175-6) divides into 3
> aspects.  [ 1. Spiritual divine EGO -- BUDDHI-MANAS;   2. Inner or Higher
> Ego -- MANAS --permanent Individuality or the Reincarnating Ego;  AND,
> 3.  The Lower or PERSONAL ego --  KAMA-MANAS
>
> I think that Theosophy provides us with a vocabulary as well as a reasoned
> basis from which to perceive the potentiality of several different mental
> and sensory states beyond (different from) the average condition of being
> "alive and awake in our body and using the brain."

Yep. they give us a lot to think about. But what are you experiencing?

> It certainly seems to be an extension on psychology, and there is evidence
> that the growing tips of psychological research in the Academies is giving
> the theosophical view point a greater basis of demonstrable evidence since
> the time of 1888.
>
> This, the PERSONAL MIND of the kama-manasic condition, is the "mind"
> which is active when we are awake and using the brain in our daily life.
> Most of our thinking seems to emanate from this center, but with the
> occasional glimpses that we secure of something "higher" we may apprehend
> the possibility of the other higher positions, including that of the
> brotherhood implied by the companionship of immortals.

Right, and to me that appears in my heart and mind as wise-love and
kindness.

> So that duty, a knowledge of LAW, and self-sacrifice are natural to such a
> point of view -- while being apparently unnatural to the isolated point of
> view of the "brain-mind," which is our usual state.  And it is precisely in
> this state of mind that we argue the most fiercely against there being
> anything of greater worth or more permanency.

Unnatural perhaps, only if you have no love in your heart.
I'm actually arguing in favor of love and wisdom as regards the attitude
towards personality, but I'm not so sure that I'm getting through to
you.

> Theosophy claims that this is active and valid for only this one
> "life" of which we are so far aware, because of the unifying thread of
> memory that ties us to our earliest sensations in this physical form.  If
> we were to deny that our own particular "thread of memory," or that the
> "thread of memory" of others was accurate or factual we would have to fall
> back on the condition that afflicts amnesiacs namely, our only
> consciousness memory back to the point where it first awoke and was no
> longer conscious of name or life-history, and had to begin again.

It seems to me that the great LAW imposes a loss of memory upon us with
each
new birth. I always took it to mean that as a person, living as a
relative
awareness, I was in safe hands and it was supposed to be that way.

> Another question or so:  What is it that bridges the gap of sleep ?  What
> is it that Dreams ?  What is trance ?  What is the consciousness that
> bridges the gap of induced unconsciousness as when anaesthetized during an
> operation ?

Thou art that.

> Now as to THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE.  HPB states that the STANZAS OF THE
> BOOK OF DZYAN are contemporaneous to it.  She also states [SD I 23] that
> there is apparently extant a Sanskrit or Tibetan version of these.

She also says in the "Voice" that they share the same source.

> My question is":  even if an old MSS were found, would that give them
> increased authenticity ?

Yes, it just might.

> Is there not inherent in these a sense of their value?  If this cannot be
> apprehended, then what is the use of even looking for physical evidence?

If the words appeal to you and have an inner concord, than it might not
matter
at all to you. I find the language off-putting and agree better with
vibrations of acceptance and understanding, that's all. Different
strokes.

> But the whole philosophy of Theosophy will not shake or tumble just because
> one cannot secure physical evidence of such antique verses or even of the
> SENZAR language.  [ From which the ZEND, the AVESTA, the GATHAS of the
> ancient Zarathustras was derived as a sister language and system of
> philosophy to the Sanskrit and the Tibetan. ]

I'm sorry Dallas, but I reserve my right to be critical.

> I do not see that it is a "hating of one's own personality" that is at
> stake in the theosophical philosophy, but rather assisting that same
> "personality" in its own educative process.

I'm all for education, and it is not solely a problem with Theosophy,
but with
an underlying attitude in some esoteric systems that you have to
despise the lower nature to progress. I just don't subscribe to it.
Love,
understanding and acceptance work better for me.

> Everyone agrees that the past is past and cannot be undone, but that the
> actor then, is living now, and can redirect his/her energies to something
> that is an improvement over the old.

Surely.

> It would be valuable, it seems to me for any individual to examine into his
> acts, thoughts and motives of the past with a view to seeing if they can be
> presently improved on morally and ethically.  And what basis for morals or
> ethics is superior to brotherhood ?  What religion is superior to a pursuit
> of truth and wisdom ?  In these endeavors we all share and can, if we will
> assist others.  And that I believe to be the essence of Theosophical
> teaching.  At least that is my opinion on this.

Brotherhood to me means love, not an intent to destroy the self-esteem
of
people or teach novice students that they have to fear themselves and
commit
psychological suicide as a discipline to become holy. One good hug, I'm
sure,
can clear this all up for you. I've only really been trying to comment
on this
attitude. I hope that you understand.  -- M

> >> Mark wrote :
> >>
> >> I want to stress the fact that I believe it is
> >> psychologically healthier to understand the cause of "selfishness" and
> >> "ego," (theosophically speaking) etc., than to react with fear
> >> and self-loathing against it.



--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com
E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com