Re: Re: Theosophy in the mist
May 05, 1998 06:23 AM
by Dallas TenBroeck
Actually we bathe in the psychic, but do not have the acuity or
sense to distinguish it from our feelings, our "intuitions," or
even our thoughts.
I think that getting that ability through understanding is
valuable. Then we can go further.
When we dream we "visit" a "plane" that is specially one of the
"psychic" ones. When we "day-dream" again, when we are beset by
a mood or have a fit of anger, pity, remorse, envy, etc... all
examples of the psychic forces acting in and through us.
But who is it that notices these changes, and itself remains
steadfast as "INDIVIDUALITY." the "real Me."
As to your being involved in "spiritualism" or not -- the word
was probably ill chosen, or misunderstood -- I was speaking of
those who make a cult of their seeking to receive
"communications" from the "departed." And those are still
around. The astral plane is full of "kama-rupas" [ "Bodies of
desire" -- abandoned (like a second corpse) by the Master Soul --
which has gone into the devachanic state ( meditative on the
nobilities of the last life) ]
But is that relevant now ? I think most students of Theosophy
know well the difference between kama-loca and Devachan, and the
journey of the Immortal Soul from life to life -- HPB's KEY
explains it all so well.
Best wishes, Dallas
> From: "Mark Kusek" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Sunday, May 03, 1998 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Theosophy in the mist
>> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>> I have enjoyed your comments.
>Same here, Dallas.
>> Do you imagine that I do not have a psychic nature, with
>> 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
>> my psychic nature as a bunch of living sensitive tools, and
>> bunch of unruly kids.
>I'm glad to hear that.
>I understand my emotions as happy, sad, scared, mad, etc. I
>input, even when its wild, messy or "unruly" (I appreciate the
>I guess maybe we just trust ourselves in different ways. I don't
>problem accepting an earthy spirituality. I agree with you
>there is the need for self-control. I hope I've been clear about
>> 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
>paralysis. There is fear that is the body's wisdom and then
>inordinate fear that cripples. I hope I am being clear. I am in
>advocating behaving in every situation with a "lack of
>You'll only end up in jail or worse. Likewise, I wouldn't want
>afraid to act in every situation either.
>It's a balance in the heart that can manage right action.
>courage, caution, love, faith: they all go together. That's not
>that you won't get your tail whipped sometimes. You undoubtedly
>you are obviously overwhelmed or out of your depth you'll need
>wise strategies for defense and survival. If you are doing
>the first time, of course, do the homework, consult with
>proper coaching. But you'll eventually still need to get wet (so
>speak), if you are going to learn how to swim. At that point
>you and the water. You'll need to be able to act on your own.
>I'm trying to say.
>> As I see it my "personal
>> self" is not dissatisfied being held in leash -- so to say --
>> some extent it has realized that it is in its own best
>> agree to this state. It rumbles and shakes and occasionally
>> breaks out, and it then takes me time to catch it and put it
>> where it belongs -- but this I see happening in all of us.
>> 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,
>> everyone ? What does anyone use to control "themselves ?" Is
>> not the Mind ? and then what controls the Mind ? Is in not
>> 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,
>> > "Masters," but it doesn't have to stop you from speaking
>> TO ME IT WOULD BE HIGHLY PRESUMPTUOUS to say that the
>> were "wrong" since neither you nor I have the yard-sticks to
>> measure the degree of their exceooence. Supppose you said
>> of the President of a University in regard to the exercise of
>> powitioon ? Unless we too are at that level such a statement
>> means .... what ?
>I didn't say that the "Masters" were wrong. They themselves
>the possibility that they could be. As a matter of fact they
>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
>reading, you haven't come across this. Were you presuming they
>By the way, what are "exceooence" and "powitioon?"
>> 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 sure Thoa would love to tell you all about the degree of my
>"supposed omnipotence" and my various other incompetancies! I
>think I ever claimed omnipotence. If you think I did, could you
>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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> THE BOND THAT LINKS ENTITY WITH NON-ENTITY. SD II 176 top
>That sounds suspiciously like an agreement, Dallas. Are you sure
>want to do that? ;)
>> I would not deny my "feelings" any more than you would. they
>> me, or rather they are my "younger brothers." I ought to feel
>> much compassion for them in their progress upward as anyone
>> 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
>> 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
>> better to do, is I think, wasted time.
>Again, you're putting "words in my mouth" In saying that I want
>a conversation with you, I don't mean that I want it for "lack
>something better to do." Believe me, I'm sure both of us can
>things to do.
>I am interested in the personal experiences of you and the other
>on the list. I want to participate in a community of interest
>minded (even if we disagree). If that doesn't appeal to you then
>part ways. I have no desire to "waste your time."
>I own all of the books. I've been involved for over twenty five
>can find the information I need. I have no particular interest
>doing it for me.
>Now I have a better idea of why you assume the role on the list
>Thanks, Dallas -
>WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application