Re: Re: Theosophy in the mist
May 02, 1998 04:53 PM
by Dallas TenBroeck
May 2nd 1998
You may not believe this but this is the 2nd time I have started
to answer yours. I hit the wrong keys and "presto" the answer
vanished beyond recall.
I have enjoyed your comments.
We speak the same language basically, and perhaps a conversation
would clear up a lot because we could adjust as we go along.
Writing has definite limitations.
Much of the difference is one of perspective and point of view.
We must I believe, have more parallels than we have divergences.
I'll get off my "fence" as you call it and say that If I use
expressions from others it is because I think they say things
well. But it is I who make the selection. it is also I, myself,
who has trained my mind, for better or worse.
Do you imagine that I do not have a psychic nature, with emotions
as strong as anyone's ? No. But I would say that I try to
identify them, and let them operate at my bidding, and most
carefully keep them under my thumb (most of the time) I look on
my psychic nature as a bunch of living sensitive tools, and not a
bunch of unruly kids.
I so far have not, and still do not understand, why lack of
inhibition is deemed to be of benefit. As I see it my "personal
self" is not dissatisfied being held in leash -- so to say -- to
some extent it has realized that it in its own best interest to
agree to this state. It rumbles and shakes and occasionally
breaks out, and it then takes me time to catch it and put it back
where it belongs -- but this I see happening in all of us. Why
should I be an exception ? This personal nature of mine is my
home, and I keep it in the best order that I can. But, doesn't
everyone ? What does anyone use to control "themselves ?" Is it
not the mind ? and then what controls the Mind ? Is in not the
spiritual nature ?' Perhaps I am missing something.
Best wishes to you, Dal.
> From: "Mark Kusek" <email@example.com>
> Date: Saturday, May 02, 1998 4:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Theosophy in the mist
>W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>> > Sitting on the fence reading Blavatsky is still just sitting
on the fence.
>> At least it is my fence!
>> > Your services as research librarian have always been
>> > and appreciated.
>> Now that is not being fair to a bunch of other students Jerry
>> Ekins, Daniel Caldwell, Ernest Pelletier, Ted Davy, Alan
>> Jophn Van Mater, Jerry Shoeler, Eldon Tucker, yourself,
>> Reed Carson, Vic Hao Chin, Dara Eklund, Caren Eylan, Judy
>> Saltzman, Jerome Wheeler, and all of you that read and
>> and either think well or ill of the turbulence of progress.
>I meant it seriously. I never intended to be unfair to anyone.
OF COURSE NOT -- the word "unfair" means to me, not giving
>> I am very conscious of possibly being quite wrong. But then,
>> depend on you and others to set me right - that is the "fun"
>> working with such a wonderful group of active minds -- they
>> let you get away with anything. Excellent set of checks and
>> balances, and that to my mind is exactly what Theosophy is all
>OK. No one is immune from the possibility of being wrong, not
>"Masters," but it doesn't have to stop you from speaking your
TO ME IT WOULD BE HIGHLY PRESUMPTUOUS to say that the "Masters"
were "wrong" since mether you nor I have the yard-sticks to
measure the degree of their exceooence. supppose you said that
of the President of a University in regard to his exercise of his
powitioon ? Unless we too are at that level such a statement
means .... what ?
>I wholeheartedly disagree. Specific individual and personal
>totally valid. I don't think they are a waste of time at all.
>art of life. I have no problem seeing the personal as metaphor.
>> How can I try to speak to you of these ideas if you have not
>> the same references that I use?
>You could try putting them into your own words, speaking person
>person, man to man, etc. ... you know, getting off the fence.
>How can you know what I carry in my bosom?
I DONT KNOW -- BUT WORDS WILL NOT REVEAL THAT EITHER.
>You'll never anticipate everything, no matter how much you try.
>skills developed by experience in action are different, but no
>valid than those engendered by caution. I never meant that one
>be a daredevil or hurl yourself unthinking into the fray. You
>need a healthy dose of both, in my opinion. But I absolutely do
>consider bravery and the courage of one's convictions to be
>in any way. Quite the opposite. I would rather throw all of my
>away and be able to stand on my own feet than to revere or
>them so much that I can't function without them.
Well I for one, am not so sure of my omnipotence or my
I would rather use the advice and efforts of others, if
>>I'm just talking about expressing yourself socially by typing
>view points to list members on the Internet, not about any
IN MY OPINION THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I DO -- I DON'T INTEND TO
PRETEND TO BE ANYTHING THAT I AM NOT
>>> You are quite right. It is Kama-Manas, and the
>> technical word explains the relationship, It is Manas that
>> been degraded by desire-Kama, and made a slave to the Desire
>> nature. What future is there for the Desires?
>That seems a little disdainful toward both desire and the
>don't share that attitude with you, although I know sometimes
>theosophists and other esoteric ascetic types like to beat
>about it. Tanha is the basis for all manifestation. It's not
>anywhere but to sleep during pralaya. Do you think that some
>desire does not come into play as a cause of manifestation at
>level? When Spirit and Matter first appear, is not some form of
>attraction or desire active between them? Can they polarize
>without it? Even while holding positions as polar opposites
>One, do they not irresistibly desire each other?
DESIRE FIRST AROSE IN IT THAT WAS THE PRIMAL GERM OF MIND, AND
WHICH SAGES SEARCHING WITH THEIR INTELLECT HAVE DISCOVERED TO BE
THE BOND THAT LINKS ENTITY WITH NON-ENTITY. SD II 176 top
>If you are a human in a body, then desire has already been
raised to the
>next stage. I'm as much for compassion as you are. But you can't
>yourself from emotion or stand removed somewhere inside in order
>"pass it from selfish to unselfish" or "transmute it from
>compassion." You can't avoid it. It doesn't work that way. You
>live the transition, feel through it each time. You change it by
>adept at maneuvering in the territory. If you deny your feelings
>only give them the power to bowl you over unexpectedly. One of
>is to accept and be compassionate towards them. Compassion
itself is the
>healing balm. It's hard work and you're not always successful.
>practice and often, a lot of apologies. When I hear you say
>that, you sound like you're anywhere but smack dab in the
[ DALLAS ]
I would not deny my "feelings" any more than you would. they are
me, or rather they are my "younger brothers." I ought to feel as
much compassion for them in their progress up=ward as anyone does
for children. To them, we are like "gods" with powers they
cannot yet understand. But to let them use us, to rule us --
that does not make good sense.
>It's obvious you're not convinced and nothing anyone can say or
>ever give you the direct experience I'm speaking of. You have to
>for yourself. I'm sorry that you feel inclined to abandon your
>"feelings." It must be quite an effort. I don't feel that way. I
>them. I should also tell you that I don't really read your
>obtain recommendations. I'm just trying to converse with you.
NOTED i THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A LOT MORE TOOUR CORESPONDENCE
THAN THERE SEEMS TO BE. AS TO "RECOMMENDATIONS" -- WELL TAKE IT
ANYWAY YOU WANT, I AM NOT IN THE GURU BUSINESS.
To seek to understand each other, with two willing and
interacting minds, is valuable, to converse for lack of something
better to do, is I think, wasted time.
Best wishes to you as always, Dal.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application