Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00027)

May 1st

This is the busiest May 1st I remember Mark

Here are some comments:  And they may not be very satisfactory,
but ...

Dal

> From: "Mark Kusek" <mark@withoutwalls.com>
> Date: Friday, May 01, 1998 1:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Theosophy in the mist

>Dallas,
>Please understand me. I get a real kick out of your posts and
I'm very
>curious to know you better.
>
>> Dallas wrote.
>> In my own esteem I really know very little.  I therefore use
the
>> statements made by others who seem to have better learning
than I
>> have to illustrate what seems, to me, to be a reasonable view.
>
>Very nice, but still patently safe and kind of noncommittal.
Sitting on
>the fence reading Blavatsky is still just sitting on the fence.


==========================================
[[ Dallas  ]]

At least it is my fence ! and then sitting on it I get a little
heigt and when necessary can use either side, or run along it too
... But that is only funning.

On which side is the Bull ?

As It is, I started with HPB and have been "testing" her ever
since -- in and on her own writings, and in regad to what others
write -- so far she's been batting 1000 in my eseem.  I do not
feel uncomfortable, as you may have noticed with whatever comes
along, and using Theosophy ( or at least what Ihave acquired from
it) I have tried to offere not just a different view, but one
which might serve to integrate divergencies.  The thinkg tht
distresseds me most is that there is so wide a lack of knowledge
of what Theosophy ofers -- I won't say "what theosophy Is" as so
many challenge that.  Actually THEOSOPHY is everything, and
covers every aspect of Nature (as Sceince, every aspect of Law as
history and Cycles, and projects a pretty accurate view of what
the future protends. (At least what I think my future is likely
to be.)

Now why should I think I can do better --  ?  that's one point of
view, and it is not "passive acceptance."   (as far as I know )
Dal.

================================


>> I also offer sources, quotations, what-not, so that those who
 read what I offer can go to those sources and see whether there
>> is to be found there that which I thought was valuable.
>
>Your services as research librarian have always been welcomed
and
>appreciated.

=========================================
    [ Dallas }

Now that is not being fair to a bunch of other students Jerry
Ekins, Daniel Caldwell, Ernest Pelletier, Ted Davy, Alan Donat,
Jophn Van Mater, Jerry Shoeler, Eldon Tucker, yourself, Ramadoss,
Reed Carson, Vic Hao Chin,  Dara Eklund, Caren Eylan, Judy
Saltzman, Jerome Wheeler,  and all of you that read and consider
and either think well or ill of the turbulence of progress.

Dal.

=====================================================
>
>> And that is all that I do.  Well, not quite, as I do a lot of
>> thinking about what I do read, and try to gather scattered
>> statements made, together, so that from such a mosaic a more
>> definite pattern (which, it should be agreed, is the way in
>> which my mind arranges them) -- but as I may not be entirely
>> confident of my own accuracy of deduction, I present them
freely
>> so that others can cross check them.

>You can be wrong in your deductions, but please don't let that
stop you.

Dal.

========================================================
>
>> It is my firm opinion that knowledge and wisdom is common
>> property, and that we grow by working with each other, sharing
>> what we think we have found, and so if we offer our findings,
we
>> may help others, and in reciprocity, they can correct or
enhance
>> what we have offered.  How were the Pyramids built?  By the
>> labor of many thousands of devoted people. Not by slaves!
>

>I'm not so sure about that. I think there were probabaly a lot
of slaves
>involved. Generations of slaves. Truth is, nobody knows for
sure.


==================================================
    [ Dallas ]

HPB hints that the Pyramids were constructed under the direction
of Atlantean Adepts, th Wise Men of that age -- and if so "slave
labor" then or now is not countenanced by Theosophy.  If
Theosophy is right, then we are the Atlanteans reincarnateld and
continuing in our own way the work we have set ourselves to do in
continuation of whatever goals we set up for ourselves then.

Dal.

==============================================
>
>> As to personal experiences -- well, if we are all immortals,
we
>> have probably extended our quotas in the past, had some
successes
>> (or we would not be here, anxious to learn and to progress)
and
>> some "failures" -- which is why we are not a lot further
along.
>> And so on and so forth.
>
>So what? does that mean we shouldn't have the courage of our
>convictions?
>
>> As to those of this life, if I have had
>> any then I would be most reticent, as they mean something to
me,
>> and very little to any others.
>
>I would challenge you to test that assumption.

==============================================
    [ Dallas ]

Mark what any one of us may have done, is not relevant to any
question currently being considered.  The usefullness of any
current opinion or contribution is inherent in its universality,
impersonality, and general validity -- otherwise it is a total
waste of everyone's time.

A man's philosophy ought to be his "cachet." -- the "Good
Housekeeping 'Seal of approval.'"        The alternative is
hypocrisy.
>
Dal.

======================================
>> There is a problem to be
>> overcome.  It there are  (generally speaking ) three main
planes
>> of human observation, and our passage from 1 to 3 and back
again
>> to 1, is always through 2.

 I mean:

     1.The Physical where we are awake and conscious just now,
>>
>> 2.The Psychic -- of which dream and trance experience are
>> samples [Actually the physical input of a vibrational
>> nature is translated into electro-magnetic impulses and
through the nerves
>> the Brain centers are affected.  The Real Man, the Inner
Observer
>> sees and watches the Brain-screen and recording, responds from
>> experience, memory and active decision to those impulses --
the output
>> being volition, choice, actions, words, thoughts, feelings and
our
>> "deeds" are based on these many combinations.  And so the
brain is
>> told what to do and the nerve impulses from down from It to
produce our
>> words, thoughts, feelings and "deeds" on this, the physical
>> plane. ]
>>
>> 3.The Spiritual -- of which our observation may be distorted
>> {allow me to re-quote again a valuable source
>> for understanding this: HPB TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY
Lodge          pp.  66-76.}
>>
>> With these as a basis we ought to be able to do almost
anything,
>> for a grasp of their potential opens all the "worlds" to our
>> eyes. -- But it takes time and effort.
>
>Sorry, Buster. You lost me.

=============================================
    [ Dallas ]

    Try looking at p. 278 Vol. 1 S D top half of the page.  That
might give some additional meaning.  Also on p. 181  SD I  HPB
gives a survey of the 3 lines of evolution which converge in
mankind.  That's what I am referring to.

How can I try to speak to you of these ideas if you have not got
the same references that I use ?  I try to give them, so that if
you have not used them in a while, a quick read will bring us up
to parity -- I am not being "superior," pleae.  I am trying to
say that we both know interiorly these things, but the only
difference is that mine are memories on the tips of my mental
fingers, and you will have to recover yours with a little effort,
if you have not already done that.  We all have the same sources.
Dal.

============================================

>> >Dallas,
>> >You apparently are locked in a continuous cycle of reading
and thinking
>> >about book knowledge that you could conceivably continue to
spin in for
>> >years and years. Maybe, that really does it for you, maybe it
doesn't,
>> >(it seems like it does). I won't fault you for it, if you're
getting
>> >what you need from it. So be it.
>> >
>> >But if you had the opportunity to experience spirituality
directly or
>> >read a book about someone else who had apparently done so,
what would
>> >you choose to do?
>> >==================================================
>>
>> FIRST I WOULD READ -- THEN INVESTIGATE - BUT NOT PLUNGE INTO
>> ANYTHING THAT I CANNOT PREVIEW.  I AM NOT A "RISK-TAKER."
>> ==================================================
>
>There was a survey done a few years ago where a great number of
adults
>were asked what they most regretted about their lives and the
>overwhelming majority answered, "I wish I had taken more risks."

===============================================

[ Dallas ]        What I mean:  I am not a "dare devil."  I take
rsiks enough otherwise, and would not be here without that too.
But before i risk, I try to consider all that is relevant.  Many
years ago I read a book named CAPTAIN CAUTION.  The hero
seemingly was a plodder, but he thought, and when he was sure he
acted surprisingly fast.  Others were then confused, but he had
thought out the risks and the goals, and therefore was
successful.  I rather admisred the concept.

Dal.

==================================================
>
>> >What good is all of this if, from time to time, you don't try
to fall
>> >back on your own attainment and understanding? It's almost
like you
>> >esteem Blavatsky and the Masters more than you do the Divine
spark
>> >within you, always quoting chapter and verse. I suspect that
you
>> >are not alone.
>>
>> =================================================
>>
>> NOT AT ALL.  I AM VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE DIVINE SPARK.  I RELY
ON
>> IT JUST AS WE ALL DO.  BUT I DO NOT NEED TO TAKE RISKS WHEN ON
>> INQUIRY, I CAN FIND THAT THE DIVINE SPARK IN OTHES AGREES
>> WITH WHAT MY OWS SPEAKS OF AND RECOMMENDS
>>
>> IT IS ONLY MY OWN DESIRE NATURE THAT IS INCAPABLE OF LOOKING
>> THE FUTURE WHICH WOULD SEEK TO IMPELL ME TO TAKE AN
>> ADVENTURE -- A KIND OF LEAP INTO THE UNKNOWN.  I DONT
>> CONSIDER THAT I WOULD BE WISE TO DO THAT.
>> =======================================================
>
>I'm really sorry to hear that.
>
>We will just have to agree to disagree.
>
>I believe that if you want to swim, you've got to get in the
water, not
>just read about it, or about the others who took the risks for
>themselves and dove in

===================================================

[ Dallas  ]    Believe me I have had that experience when I was
about 10 and almost drowned.  I could swim in the salt water of
the ocean, but in a fresh water pond I sank !  A friend dragged
me out fortunately == at least I did not get into the water
without an assistant == or there would be no Dallas just now.

But in the psychic realm I have a very strong sense of caution,
and do not wish to find out if I could survive.  Too many
warnings for me to be foolhardy or vainglorious.  But this does
not mean that I do not study the subject.  And learn all I can
about it.                                            Dal.

============================================

>I also don't agree with you about the desire nature. I think it
is able
>to see (or sense) the future. That's how it can both remember
>experiences, look forward to them and want what it does not yet
posess,
>but wishes to (in a "someday" future.) I think it is indeed
capable of
>both looking into the future and the past. Maybe that's
Kama-Manas, if
>you want to get technical, but experientially, that's pretty
much how it
>seems to behave.
>
====================================================

[ |Dallas ]    You are quite right.  it is Kama-Manas, and the
technical word explains the relationship,  It is Manas that has
been degraded by desire-Kama, and made a slave to the Desire
nature.  What future is there for the Desires ?

In the Mind I can sense a future, but in the jangle of desire, I
sense none.  Yet it is a faculty representing the highest
devlopment of the animal nature;  and as such it deserves to be
raised to the next natural stage for it, that of discirimination
and compassion when it passes from selfish to unselfish.  That is
what the man-stage is for, as i understand it.  Man transmutes
pssion into compassion through brotherhood and fairness to all
creatures.                            Dal.

=================================================


>> >Forgive me if I am blunt, but what is all this instruction
for if,
>> >ultimately, we never consciously allow ourselves the
experience
>> >of our own true Being?
>>
>> ======================================================
>>
>> MARK:  I AM CONVINCED THAT THE DIVINE SPARK WITHIN INCARNATES
>> INTO THIS BODY, SO THAT IT CAN SERVE IT AS A GUIDE OR A TUTOR.
>> I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT HAS ALREADY ACHIEVED A VERY GREAT
>> LEVEL OF PROGRESS -- THAT IT IS ONE WITH THE VAST OVER-SOUL OR
>> THE SPIRITUAL UNITY OF ALL.  IT IS A "RAY" OF THAT DIVINE
>> ALL, AND AS SUCH, IT IS UNITED TO ALL HIGHER SELVES, AND YET
>> DETACHED, SO AS TO ASSIST THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS OF ALL
THE
>> INEXPERIENCED "MONADS" -- "LIFE-ATOMS" -- WHICH GO TO FORM MY
>> PERSONALITY, AND WHICH COME AND GO FROM THE VAST OCEAN OF
>> SUCH BEINGS.  --  SO I FEEL I DO KNOW SOMETHING, AND YET I
HAVE A
>> LOT TO LEARN.  I CAN OFFER WHAT I THINK IS VALUABLE.
>>
>> ==========================
>
>I understand identification with the personality, but I also
know that
>all the talk about "IT" just keeps you from integrating the core
>experience.

==============================================
    [ Dallas ]

Well I am not convinced of that.  To "feel" is  wonderful -- and
as an artict you rely on that.  I would not recommend abandoning
it.  BTW do you know Leigh McClosky and his work ?  I also had
the experience of living for many years with an artist as a lad,
and learned a lot.                                Dal.

====================================================

>
>I have a question for you Dallas, and for the list at large:
>What is the relationship between Monadic Swabhava and the
ordinary
>experience of personal individuality? Basically: Can you trust
yourself?
>... and if not, just where are you going to displace your
confidence?
>
>Do you believe that your Monad needs [or wants] (you) to be a
person?
>
>I was really suprised to see how many responses to my survey
said that
>they were "ashamed to admit that they were "Human." What does
that say
>about us? I'm certainly not, and I don't think anyone should be.
Maybe
>you were all joking, but I'm not so sure. I was really amazed.

==========================================

Swabhava as I understand the Sanskrit is the sense of "purpose in
life, or in existence."  SWA - Self   BHAVA   - duty, purpose,
bliss etc...

The Monad by theosophical definition is ATMA-BUDDHI  (the "Ray"
of the universal spirit, and its vehicle Mulaprakriti or
MahaBuddhi  (root matter) its inseperable twin.)  As such the
MONAD has one great function.  It unifies.  it gives purpose and
life to all things.  It is the source of Brotherhood.  It is in
one aspect the root and being of KARMA -- since the law of
reciprocity puts everything into motion.

Every being is a MONAD clothed in matter.  The evolution of
themonad starts withnthe 'life-atom' and proceeds through all the
kingdoms up to the man-stage.

As to our INDIVIDUALITY that I understand is ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS a
Triad that is deathless -- it reflects its wisdom through MANAS
(really Buddhi-Manas) on the personality below, the embodied Mind
or KAMA-MANAS -- the golden thread of the antaskarana links the
two.

In the evolutionary scheme Kosmically, Spirit and Matter are
co-eternal and Mind is the many layered relationship that unites
them in manifestation.  They are deathless, beginningless and
endless and have no "death."  They simply ARE.   All together
they form the TRIAD.  the MONAD in evolution is
ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS.

As "matter differentiates" it looses its direct perception of
Spirit, confusion reigns
( chaos) -- but law constantly works there, and eventually the
aggregation of 'life-atoms" (  Monadic sparks without minds )
develops their highest level of consciousness the desire nature,
this is instinct, or kama. (desires and passions)

Man links all this together as he has an animal body (with
instinct and kama active as that which we call the personality --
Kama-Manas)  this has its own independence as it draws its life
from not only itself (as matter), but from that LIFE which Manas
reflects into it.  That is where we all are.  That is where we
have to disentangle this psycho-physiological confusin and make
some working strength out of the experience.  Do we loose
anything by it ?  No.  We always gain.  The pesonality becomes
wise.

Ther is a lot more and I am summarizing the first 300 pages of
the  SD so it is spotty.  The KEY says it in greater detail  ( pp
80 - 170).  its worth a re-read.
                Dal.
==============================================
>Mark
>--------
>WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
>http://www.withoutwalls.com
>E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com