Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00224)

March 25th:

Dear Thoa: O

Yours of the 24th  Personal Self, and the HIGHER SELF.

What I am trying to say is that the HIGHER SELF is present in each of
us as part of the UNIVERSAL SELF.  If SPIRIT is a universal concept
-- and for some it is held to be a fact -- then it is impersonal,
immortal, just, true, and everything that is IDEAL.  It forms for us
the source of our intuitions and as we listen to it (if we ever do),
it is the Voice of Conscience.  All of us, everything, our world,
solar system, galaxy -- all, ALL, is part of the ONE UNIVERSAL SELF.

So it is not a "personal" 'voice.'  As I understand it, it is the one
sure link we each have to brotherhood, and this is which pervades all
things.

It is that fragment of the Divine which is living, aware and
conscious in us, but, it cannot force us (as persons) to do anything.
 It is a Perceiver, a Watcher, a Spectator -- but its active aspect
is limited to, as I say above, the "intuition," and the "Voice of
Conscience."  It has also been described as the MONAD -- Atma-Buddhi
or Spirit and Wisdom combined.  These never "die."  The personality
dies and fades for all of us,  So why this constant struggle and
fight in life ? what do we actually learn from that situation ?  What
is the "fruit of existence ?"  How do we access our "Buddhi-Manas" --
our Wise-mind ?

To the personality, the embodied mind (Kama-Manas) only linked to our
desires and needs and wants, it is the polar opposite.  It (the
HIGHER SELF) is universal, just, pure, impartial, and compassionate
-- it seeks to reconcile differences and to make for practical
non-violence.  It realizes the concept of brotherhood all the time.
It is our IDEAL SELF.

As to non-violence in practice, that would be left to each one to
decide on their own course of action.  Gandhi, for instance, had to
assure himself by study and by mediation on the ideals of cooperation
and interaction, as to what course he would take personally.  And
that was what he would then show to others as an example of living
and acting non-violently.  Like all great men of enormous inner
power, his actions were not done for others, but by and for himself.
 His example and explanations were taken by those around him to
represent the actual living in practice, before them, of such a
detached and impersonal life, as an ideal person would live.  He was
murdered at last by those religious fanatics who could not stand to
see a living example of their own ideals before them -- they were
imperfectly living the ideals that they taught and professed, and
they saw the effect that it had on people, of showing that each one
is independent of religious beliefs or creeds, or politics, or
anything else but their own great resolve to live a pure life.  It
was the fanatics that killed the most fanatical of all -- for Gandhi
was dedicated to living the life of the inner spirit-soul in daily
life.  If you consider the legends about Jesus then a similarity can
be traced,  Any great Sage who lives with others in their daily
affairs places their friends and acquaintances before a mirror.  That
mirror is the one which our individual HIGHER SELF places before us
as personal beings all the time.  That is why so few of us dare to
look at if for any long time.  Some, of course realize this, and then
the look at it for longer and longer time as the days slip by.

Those who came to Gandhi interpreted his way of living as political,
or personal, or whatever they chose to view it as.  I met him as lad
and was always greatly moved by his attitude and nature, also his
reasonings were friendly and universally applicable to individual
life.  He resolved strife and conflict because he showed warring and
angry individuals that there was that idealism which transcended
contention, and resolved it.  He was an immortal who lived his belief
in immortality in public.  Jesus, Buddha, and all other great Beings
who visit us and live with us do the same.

This is as I understand the situation.		Best wishes,		Dallas

----------
> From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" <thoalight@aol.com>
> Subject: The test true spirituality -- what is
universality ?
> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 11:37 AM
>
> Dear Brenda and Dallas,
>
> Thank you for your responses.  Yes, ideals are great and we should
shoot
> for them.  Maybe we can rely on the laws of the universe to take
care of
> things.  However, I'm looking at the concrete aspects of
interaction.  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 their 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.
That's why I
> think a strong dose of reality check is in order, in combination
with our
> striving for the higher goal.  There is a purpose to the lower
realm.  It
> is our place of learning and development.  Are we riding on the
great comet
> or are we pitifully committing mass suicide?
>
> Dallas, I agree with you regarding keeping the total perception of
the
> universe in our dealing with others.  We can still take actions,
but with a
> different state of mind.  We can have compassion and understanding
for
> individuals but realize that the safest place for us would be away from
> them.  Brenda, yes, there are times when it may be best to let
things work
> themselves out.  However, as we all know, life is complicated, and
as much
> as we love for ideals to be applied perfectly, we often find
different
> situations call for different answers.
>
> For example, as a reality check, consider the topic of violence.
Mahatma
> Gandhi said that all violence is a sin.  However, he also said that
it is
> unavoidable.  Even the Mahabharata supports disinterested violence
as a
> mean to a good end.  Ahimsa have differing levels of application
depending
> on different beliefs and religion.  The difference ranges from our
dealing
> with animals, self-preservation, social preservation, and ahimsa in
deeds,
> words and thoughts.  For every ideal about ahimsa, I can pose a
question
> that would make one wonder about that ideal.  I would have liked to
discuss
> ahimsa with Pat F. However, my time did not permit me to write
much.
>
> Thoa :o)
>
>
>
>
of