Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00265)

> Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 4:08 PM
> From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval@nwc.net>
> Subject: Re: Holy folk on a mountain -- IS THAT LOCATION AVAILABLE ?

>June 6th 1998
>
>Dear Alan:
>
>Enjoyed your comments here as well as posted on other things.
>
>I can't expect to "fine-tune" all the things that I mean, but
>will interject some comments below in your answers -- reminds me
>of the lady of the house who sent the burler out of the room so
>she could be alone with her husband.  She knew the butler was a
>peeper, so she looked out through the key hole and saw an eye
>there, opened the door.  Butler was rising from a stoop.  "Are
>you peeping again ," she asked?
>With dignity he replied.  "I was looking to see if Madam was
>looking to see if I was looking to see if Madam was looking !"
> His name was Thomas. ]
>
>Anyway .....        Best wishes as always   Dal.
>
>==========================================
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Dr A M Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:41 PM
>Subject: Re: Holy folk on a mountain -- IS THAT
>LOCATION AVAILABLE ?
>
>
>>W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net> writes
>>>I always thought Theosophy was a series of propositions for us
>to
>>>consider and adopt if we found that they were reasonable.
>>
>>Me too.
>>>
>>>Something like:
>>>
>>>Every one of us is an Immortal -- the body is assumed
employed,
>>>deployed and finally consummated.  The Spiritual Self oversees
>>>constantly the process of mental and moral improvement.
>>
>>Partly reasonable.  My experience suggests that the Spiritual
>Self
>>oversees - period.
>
>
>==================================================
>
>Agree.  But why ?
>
>================================================
>
>>>
>>>Morals have a basis in Law and in fact.
>>
>>In fact, perhaps. In Law, no.
>>>
>>>Moral Law is Natural Law.
>>
>>"Morals" derive from "mores" which are human customs which vary
>>from place to place and from time to time.  The moral "law" of
>the
>>Taleban [sp?] in Afghanistan is very different from that of
>(say) Illinois.
>>Therefore such a view is unreasonable
>
>
>===========================================
>
>I know the difference between "morality" of a customary or
tribal
>type and true morality (which is presumed to be based on
>"universal law -- if that is acceptable), which I meant --
>perhaps "ethics" would have been a better word ?  But really, I
>don't want to get into the 10,000 arguments, and don't know how
>to escape it.  Need Oxzam's razor !
>
>============================================
>
>>>Evolution makes for Universal Rightness as well as
>Righteousness.
>>
>>"Evolution" is a theory. Change and development are observable
>facts.
>>To follow a theory is reasonable.  Dogmatically to accept a
>theory as
>>"truth" is unreasonable.
>
>
>=============================================
>
>I certainly did not mean the Scientific hypotheses concerning
>"evoluton" which is limited to form and fossils.  I had in mind
>the 3-fold Theosophical one  ( SD I 181 )
>
>===============================================
>>>
>>>The "Fundamental unity of all Souls with the Universal
>Oversoul"
>>>makes moral contagion possible through the subtle psychic
>medium
>>>that we all share in.
>>
>>Completely unreasonable.  IF such a unity already exists, then
>the
>>statement can only mean that the"Universal Oversoul" is itself
>infected
>>by contagion, and all Souls - acording to the above premise -
>are
>>imperfect.  The word contagion itself requires contact. Thus
all
>Souls
>>are corrupt by reason of being Souls in the first place. *That*
>would be
>>a reasonable proposition, given the stated hypothesis.
>
>================================================
>
>I knew that would draw fire !  I tend to agree on this plane
with
>what you say.
>
>But if the "spiritual plane" transcends this, then it might be
>free of our kind of "contagion" and yet undersand what it is,
how
>it arises, and what can be done about it.  seems to me that
>Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and othes tried to make this point and
>give some "way out" for those who might want to do that ?
>
>Also perfectly true that I cannot speak from personal
experience,
>but the doctrines seem to me to be quite consistent and logical.
>
>You speak of NDE and penetrating the "astral plane."  I don't
>queston that although I have not consciously experienced such a
>transition in this present personality of mine.  I have heard
>enough evidence to make it appear reasonable.
>
>But I also think it is reasonable to say that "Soul" is not
>SPIRIT -- taking that to be pure, and the "soul" to be
>purifiable.
>
>It there is "contagion" then what is the source and nature of
the
>contagion.  If the "Oversoul" exists, then would not the
transfer
>of thought and emotion be convered under its abilities,
>qualities, nature ?
>
>If as Theosophy avers the Soul is essentially the mind, then
>there is the possibility of at least three positons for the
>"soul."
>
>1.  The "Higher Mind" ( or Divine soul ) [Buddhi-Manas]  -- a
>condition of the soul/mindwhe it allies itself with universal
>ideals:  nobility, altruism, generosity, tolerance, brotherhood,
>tutoring, a sharing of knowledge, etc...   And these tend to a
>universality and an impersonality in outlook -- which is not
cold
>detachment, but rather a warm and intersted outlook on one's
>surroundings and condition, including always all those who
>surround us.
>
>2.    The "Mind" [Manas] as a thinking, reasoning, remembering
>(and forgetting) , logical capacity.  [  In the exercise of this
>faculty, there can be the coolness of detached inspection and a
>refusal to "get involved." ]  It is modified by the selection it
>makes of subjects to consider (choice and motive -- implying
also
>freedom of choice).  These modifications are broadly:  correct
>understanding, misunderstanding, perception, fancy, sleep
>(unconsciousness of various kinds when the perceptive faculties
>are in abeyance), and memory.  Correct understanding results
from
>perception (observation and experiement), inference (or
>imagination and fancy);  and the  testimony that others offer.
>
>3.    the "lower mind" [ Kama-Manas ] -- when the mind is
alllied
>to the passions, desires, wants, needs, instincts, etc... all
>pertaining to the "personality." And these tend to isolation and
>selfishness.  The lower mind does not have the all-inclusiveness
>of the higher mind, and is so to say at the other end of the
>spectrum of mentality or intellect.
>
>In all this ithere is a lot of latitude to agree or disagree
>with.
>
>I'm not trying to make any special point beyond saying that the
>difference makes it possible, as I see it, for that statement to
>be correct.
>
>===========================================
>
>
>
>
>>Alan
>>-------------------
>>Brought to you from
>> West Cornwall, UK