Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00079)

> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>
> I have enjoyed your comments.

Same here, Dallas.

> 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'm glad to hear that.
I understand my emotions as happy, sad, scared, mad, etc. I value the
input, even when its wild, messy or "unruly" (I appreciate the energy).
I guess maybe we just trust ourselves in different ways. I don't have a
problem accepting an earthy spirituality. I agree with you though, that
there is the need for self-control. I hope I've been clear about that.

> I so far have not, and still do not understand, why lack of
> inhibition is deemed to be of benefit.

For the simple fact that inhibition can be overdone to the point of
paralysis. There is fear that is the body's wisdom and then there is
inordinate fear that cripples. I hope I am being clear. I am in no way
advocating behaving in every situation with a "lack of inhibition."
You'll only end up in jail or worse. Likewise, I wouldn't want to be
afraid to act in every situation either.

It's a balance in the heart that can manage right action. Experience,
courage, caution, love, faith: they all go together. That's not to say
that you won't get your tail whipped sometimes. You undoubtedly will. If
you are obviously overwhelmed or out of your depth you'll need to employ
wise strategies for defense and survival. If you are doing something for
the first time, of course, do the homework, consult with experts, get
proper coaching. But you'll eventually still need to get wet (so to
speak), if you are going to learn how to swim. At that point it's just
you and the water. You'll need to be able to act on your own. That's all
I'm trying to say.

> 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 is 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.

Just who are you when you are saying this?

> > <snip>
> > OK. No one is immune from the possibility of being wrong, not even
> > "Masters," but it doesn't have to stop you from speaking your mind.
>
> TO ME IT WOULD BE HIGHLY PRESUMPTUOUS to say that the "Masters"
> were "wrong" since neither 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 the exercise of his
> powitioon ?   Unless we too are at that level such a statement
> means  .... what ?

I didn't say that the "Masters" were wrong. They themselves admitted to
the possibility that they could be. As a matter of fact they even said
that the Highest Dhyani Chohan in the system has only a limited
knowledge and can't see beyond it. I'm suprised that with all of your
reading, you haven't come across this. Were you presuming they were
infallible?

By the way, what are "exceooence" and "powitioon?"

> <snip>
> Well I for one, am not so sure of my omnipotence or my competence.
> I would rather use the advice and efforts of others, if available.

I'm sure Thoa would love to tell you all about the degree of my
"supposed omnipotence" and my various other incompetancies! I don't
think I ever claimed omnipotence. If you think I did, could you please
point it out to me. I think that Chuck did, though!

There is a little room between being totally inept and omnipotent for a
development of competancies in certain areas though, no?

> > Tanha is the basis for all manifestation. It's not going
> > anywhere but to sleep during pralaya. Do you think that some form of
> > desire does not come into play as a cause of manifestation at the cosmic
> > level? When Spirit and Matter first appear, is not some form of
> > attraction or desire active between them? Can they polarize within Unity
> > without it? Even while holding positions as polar opposites within the
> > 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
>
> ========================================================

That sounds suspiciously like an agreement, Dallas. Are you sure you
want to do that? ;)

> <snip>
> 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 upward 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.
>
> ==============================================

We are like "gods" - who's sounding omnipotent now? ;)

I never suggested that we let feelings "use us" or "rule us."

> I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A LOT MORE TO OUR CORESPONDENCE
> THAN THERE SEEMS TO BE. AS TO "RECOMMENDATIONS" -- WELL, TAKE IT
> ANYWAY YOU WANT, I AM NOT IN THE GURU BUSINESS.

Good, because I'm not buying.

> 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.

Again, you're putting "words in my mouth" In saying that I want to have
a conversation with you, I don't mean that I want it for "lack of
something better to do." Believe me, I'm sure both of us can find better
things to do.

I am interested in the personal experiences of you and the other people
on the list. I want to participate in a community of interest among like
minded (even if we disagree). If that doesn't appeal to you then we can
part ways. I have no desire to "waste your time."

I own all of the books. I've been involved for over twenty five years. I
can find the information I need. I have no particular interest in anyone
doing it for me.

Now I have a better idea of why you assume the role on the list that you
do.

Thanks, Dallas -
Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com
E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com