Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00001)

Jan. 1 1998

Dear Nick:

An old text suggests that "Consciousness" is singular, not dual, and the
apparent duality, as say, between "Higher," and "lower" self is the result
of centering one's consciousness in either of those states.

If that is true then the nature of the difference ought to be ascertained.

If the "Higher" is defined by universality and liberality -- by the
practice of Brotherhood, and by "good thoughts, deeds and words," then,
would you not say that the ethical aspect of consciousness is the one in
play ?

If the "lower" is defined by selfishness and isolation -- by the practice
of "lower-self interest" (however "enlightened"), and by dissimulation
prevarication, and untruth in thought, word and deed, then the difference
is apparent.  Anything done under that influence, would it not be something
that we would have no pride in having it displayed openly, say, in a court
of law, to answer for our motives in front of the public ?

I do not see how otherwise we can distinguish or define the differences
implied in these conditions.

I agree that SD II 109-10 does cover the situation, and satisfies me.  Also
SD II 167 adds to that -- where it speaks of the dual rays.  Also 1-629,
I-570-74.

Have you any more telling references that further open the mind ?

>From SD I-181 on it speaks of the several lines of evolution seeming to
imply that the MONADS are always present as CONSCIOUSNESS, but that they
hae grades of development corresponding to their experience.  They start
out as "essences" then experience in the lower kingdoms the conditions
there, including the elemental kingdoms, from that they pass when Manas is
"lit up" into the human kingdom, and thereafter by "self-induced, and
self-devised efforts" (I believe this is the phrase) they advance as
students in a college do, at their own chosen speed.  When, finally they,
pass the grade and graduate they have further choices open, including that
of remaining as a pupil-teacher, passing on the wisdom they have acquired
--- am I right in this thinking ?

		All the best to you for 1998			Dallas




		Dallas TenBroeck

dalval@nwc.net                        (818) 222-8023
                   23145 Park Contessa,
            Calabasas, Ca., 91302, USA.

----------
> From: "Nicholas Weeks" <am455@lafn.org>
> Subject: Re: Selfishness
> Date: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 3:46 PM
>
>
>
> MK:
> >What do you think would happen if our motive is to kindly accept, love
> >and try to understand ourselves as well as our animal nature?
>
> I do not think a specific contemplation directed towards our lower self
> matters much, as long as it's cravings are not indulged and it becomes,
> over time, obedient to the altruistic Self.  Since most of our waking
(and
> dreaming) consciousness is heavily influenced, even dominated by our
> lower, self-centered desires, it is just a charade to project love,
> loathing or indifference towards our lower self.  It is only the persona
> putting on yet another mask (of kindly nobility) and performing for
> another part of itself.
>
> The Secret Doctrine vol. 2 pp. 109-10 covers the ground quite profoundly
> and deserves study.
>
> The traditional attitudes of discipline, neglect, contempt or combat
> toward our animal nature have produced generations of adepts &
> bodhisattvas.  I see no reason to reinvent the wheel of Dharma.
>
>
> --
> Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles
>   The only God which Theosophists worship is Truth; the only devil which
>   they recognize and which they fight against with unabated fury is the
>   Satan of egotism and human passions.  Blavatsky
>
>