Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00287)

Mar 31st '98

Dear Doss:

Why bother about qualifying Karma -- it is neither good nor bad.
It is opportunity.  If you look back at things that were wrongly
said or thought or done, you may be reinforcing your apprehension
as to their results.  If however you have found the "causes" for
such and such, then working at avoiding starting such "causes"
again is the best activity to plan for.  Once that one has found
that, the need to go back to review specifics ought to be dropped.

We cannot undo the past.  We will receive the results of it.  It is
a part of the evolutionary experience.  What we can try to do is
avoid repeating mistakes.  The valuable things that Theosophy
points to ( and this is validated by our own common-sense) is that
1.  We recognize that ideally we could have acted better.  2.  We
recognize that we have a "tendency" in some area to make errors --
so our judgment is blunted, perhaps for a while, but like all good
tools, it can be repaired.  3.  Repairing is by setting up the
opposed "virtue."  This is both Hindu, Budhistic and fundamentally
Theosophical philosophy/psychology.

The present difference between Western and Eastern psychology, is
that in the West they have not established a basis for considering
the actual immortality of the Spirit/Soul in every human.  If that
could be done, even theoretically, the causes for "sorrow" and
"pain" (or "bad Karma") could be eliminated by self-discipline.  In
fact it would be self-defense, for who wants to endure future pain
and suffering ?  But, cleverly, in every established religion, the
fact of actual spirit immortality has been played down, as the
priests, or padres, would be afraid to lose their congregations, or
their control over those whom they are supposed to 'guide.'  It
becomes a vast "influence" game and is a great pity, as it keeps
humans from learning to think.  And that is important:  THE POWER
TO THINK LOGICALLY AND INDEPENDENTLY.

The next thing that Western psychology ought to recognize is the
difference between the Mind-Self, and the Emotional (or passionate)
self.  They mix up the two and relegate the thinking self to the
"brain" [ and they discuss the physical results of cerebration as
seen on instruments, but do not ask the vital question:  Who
originates the thought, and What kind of a Being is the actual
THINKER ? ]  As to the emotional self, every one knows that it has
to be controlled or else if allowed to run wild and unrestrained,
atrocities are committed -- as happens daily in all to many cases.

At present the volitions which arise chiefly in the passionate-self
are recognized and are thought to represent the sum of man's
consciousness as a possession, as his independence, as his right to
be.  But that may also serve to largely eliminate consideration of
the "rights of others,"   If we are all equals, then their "rights"
and "ours" have to be adjusted as neither is superior to another
when we consider "needs" only.  "Wants" are plentiful, but those
are not always wise or necessary.  In making choices internally we
have to pause and weigh the "need" vs. the "want."  The "Desiring,
or selfish and personal self" is unable to look for enough ahead
and see the ultimate results of the karma that its actions
generate.  The Mind-Self is always able to view several factors in
the range or panorama of results.  The personal, lower self then
tries to use to forward viewing faculty of the mind to selfishly
devise ways to obtain what it wants ( and if allowed by us to go
forward, usually this develops into an exaggerated phase of living
which results ultimately in developing 'vices.' -- Do test this
conclusion and see if I am thinking it out correctly ]

The laws of all lands try to balance and harmonize these two view
points.  And, they appeal to man's higher nature, to his sense of
generosity, of compassion, and of justice, as they foist the
concept that others have also got their rights and
responsibilities, and conflict should not be allowed to degenerate
into a brawl, either verbal or physical.  This is why there is so
much wrangling in the courts:  the "lower self" argues, and is
crafty and sly.  The Higher Self stands out against any
encroachment and speaks of unity and brotherhood as the only basis
for relationships that involve cooperative living.

A peculiar manifestation of this condition is, in America, the
intense desire to go off somewhere else, usually far from one's
family, and there establish a household where one can "be one's
self."  Possibly one of the great reasons for marital separations
arises when after the first passion, responsibility demands give
and take, some sacrifices of the personal self, for the sake of
another's convenience.  Ideally this ought to be done
spontaneously, but where there is little or no flexibility, there
develops increasing rifts in heart and mind that lead to
separation.  It is the children who then usually suffer the most.
And for their sake, parents ought to sacrifice.  But few parents
consider when they start a family the responsibilities that they
will incur and the sacrifices they will have to make to rear their
children.  But that is an other story !

But enough of these musings, I am sure  you know these things well
already.

		Best wishes, as always,			Dal.

                                                       W. Dallas
TenBroeck

dalval@nwc.net

----------
> From: "M K Ramadoss" <ramadoss@eden.com>
> Subject: Re:masters???
> Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 7:20 PM
>
> Dear Dallas:
>
> Well said. What I wrote I quoted from my memory.
>
> I recall having read about HPB being constantly pestered by
members and non
> members alike with varying requests to be communicated to the
Masters.
>
> It is a pity that many tend to substitute Masters in the place of
their
> favourite God or Goddess and continue to try to deal with them in
that
> relationship.
>
> While so much information is available for the seeker so that one
can put
> them into practice and such practice, in my opinion, will
automatically
> lead to a better understanding what has been said in many of the
early
> Theosophical material, much of which have been authored thru HPB
or
> authored by the Masters.
>
> Thanks for the feedback and reassurance that my understanding is
proceeding
> in right direction.
>
> mkr
>
> PS: When sometimes I look at my "bad" Karma, and look around what
many
> others are facing, I no longer cry about mine. I have shared this
view of
> life with many acquaintances without using Theosophical
terminology and
> many have appreciated it. Such a view avoids any need to request
"help" to
> deal with our Karma.
>
>
>
>
> At 02:34 PM 3/30/1998 -0800, you wrote:
> >March 30th 1998
> >
> >Dear Doss:
> >
> >Yours of the 29th re: Masters.
> >
> >I believe that your answer is absolutely correct in regard to
the
> >Masters, and to this we could add quoting from one of HPB's
early
> >letters to Mr. Sinnett that the Masters who had accepted the
> >responsibility of assisting in the forming of the T S and in
> >contacting some of the fellows who deserved in under karma
should
> >not be pestered with petty requests of a private sort.
> >
> >They are not "Gods," in the sense of beings who will interfere
or
> >break the laws of karma for anyone or at any time.  They are
ruled
> >by Karma as are all, so it remains for each to work out his or
her
> >own destiny in the light of the teachings already given.
> >
> >If we, as Their students ( I mean HPB and the Masters') do not
> >study and apply what they taught, and wander off in other
> >directions, how can we expect them to respond ?
> >
> >I will add also that in HPB's LETTERS TO A.P.SINNETT will be
found
> >plenty of hints on their relations to the fellows, and on the
> >occult basis for Theosophy to be learned and applied.
> >
> >With best wishes as always,			Dallas
> >
> >                                                        W.
Dallas
> >TenBroeck
> >
> >dalval@nwc.net
> >
> >----------
> >> From: "M K Ramadoss" <ramadoss@eden.com>
> >> Subject: Re:masters???
> >> Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:30 PM
> >>
> >> N.Malcom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I've been reading the posts with some increasing anxiety
about
> >the amount
> >> > of mental "shoving" going on. I'm also confused. In the
quote
> >about Olcott
> >> > describing HPB as directing the spirits instead of being
> >controlled by
> >> > them...this quote doesn't have anything to do with the
Masters
> >does it? I
> >> > thought HPB always insisted the Masters were living men. If
so,
> >she didn't
> >> > do any "channeling" from the Masters, it would have been
more a
> >form of
> >> > telepathic communication wouldn't it, from living brain/mind
to
> >living
> >> > brain/mind? I'm not as studied as most on this list, and
> >perhaps she did
> >> > have communication with a
> >> > deceased Master, but didn't she also warn against trying to
> >communicate
> >> > with the dead? Wasn't that the whole big "fight" between
> >Theosophy and the
> >> > Spiritualist?  Just asking-- Nancy
> >> >
> >>
> >> >From what I have read, here are the facts relating to HPB.
> >>
> >> 1. Adepts/Masters who did have a physical body did communicate
> >with her
> >> telepathically quite frequently.
> >>
> >> 2. Adepts/Masters are also used HPB's physical body – she
> >consciously
> >> stepped out of the body to let an Adept temporarily make use
of
> >her body
> >> to speak or write. HPB was fully aware of what was going on
and
> >the
> >> Adept made use of her body only with her explicit permission.
> >Adepts did
> >> not control her in the traditional sense of one person
> >controlling
> >> another.
> >>
> >> Hope this clarifies.
> >>
> >> Mkr
> >>
> >theos-talk@theosophy.com
> >>
and
consisting
> >of
theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
> >
theos-talk@theosophy.com
> >
consisting of
theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
> >
>
theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
of