Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00223)

March  25th 1998

Dear Mark:

I do not think that I meant to imply that we actually have in hand
(just now) a grasp of the "total perception of the universe"  but we
do have the potential of securing it.

To me the reason is clear and logical, if we take as a fact the
"Three Fundamentals" of the Secret Doctrine ( SD I pp. 14-18)  == as
interiorly, we are in Consciousness, a fragment of the Universal
Consciousness, -- or, we are a replica in small of the great ONE.  We
are a "microcosm" of the "macrocosm."  In a hologram, each "part"
contains a link to the 'whole.'

I mean that the inner HIGHER SELF of each human is one with the
Macrocosmic SELF -- a portion of IT.  [  In HPB's TRANSACTIONS OF THE
BLAVATSKY LODGE, I find that there is valuable evidence offered in
the discussions reported there between pages 66 and 78 (ULT Edition)
]

To me the idea that we share at all times in the powers and currents
of life that are universal is significant.  First, we can think of
such a condition, so we must have something that is consubstantial
with IT.  Second, we do have a sense of continuing identity.  If that
is so, then where does it derive from ?

No.  I did not mean personal "arrogance," but implied that we all
have such a potential and do not use it.

If you would look (as I have) at the S D  particularly pages I-247-8,
150fn, 159, 181-5, 210, 247-8, 470-3, 456-8,  II 69, 88-9, 94-5,
164-7, 254, 576-8 (and there are more, if you want) you will see
where I got the idea that our nature inside, as consciousness, is
three-fold, broadly.  There is a unity with the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT,
there is (as to 'mind') a "Lighting up" that occurs, which cements,
so to say, the "god within" (HIGHER SELF--MONAD) with the personal
man below, and third, the physical evolution -- which provides us
with a physical body, brain, sensorium etc...  [ SD I 247-8, II 167 ]

For me, the logic of immortality (not of the personality -- for that
would be real "arrogance") but of the "Thinking Self" -- the MANAS is
of primary importance.  Our sojourn on earth, which begins for the
personality as its birth and ends with its death, ought to have a
greater importance than "survival of the fittest, etc., etc.

But, consider even the body -- it is made up of molecules and atoms,
which are constantly coming and going under laws of their own over
which we have little in any control.   The cells are being replaced
in every position during a year (says medicine and physiology) to the
extent of about 98 % each year, (and 100% every 7 years). -- so
memory and the continuity of personal consciousness lies somewhere
else than in physiological transmission alone.
And this exchange of atoms, molecules, cells, etc... is universally
established by Science, so does this not lead to the Theosophical
idea that there is an "astral body" within, or behind every physical
body?  Something on which those constantly changing atoms, etc.,
arrange themselves ?

Why (for some minds) is there this constant search for proofs of the
Inner Self, and for the proofs of Egoic immortality ?  Why does
Theosophy propose a seven-fold division of the 'principles of man and
nature ?"

Perhaps you have arrived at some other reasonings, and would be
willing to share them with me ?					Dallas

=====================================================
| From: "Mark Kusek" <mark@withoutwalls.com>
| Subject: Re:The test true spirituality -- what is
universality ?
| Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 12:50 PM
|
| > Thoa Tran wrote:
| >
| > In particular, I'm looking at individuals deluded with the
importance of their
| > contact with the higher self.  The problem comes when their lower
selves
| > come into interaction with others.  They are so deluded that they
| > cannot see the misery their lower selves are causing others,
choosing
| > instead to hide behind the fantasy of their holy connection.
|
| < ouch, ... sting! >
|
| > Dallas, I agree with you regarding keeping the total perception
of the
| > universe in our dealing with others.
|
| Can we assume arrogance enough to think we have "the total
perception of
| the universe" in our grasp? LOL, ... I don't think so.
|
| Mark
| (Through a glass, darkly.)
|
|
of