[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: No cost, no obligation

Jun 13, 1998 07:38 AM
by Dallas TenBroeck

June 13th 1998

Well Kym:

I guess I am wrong.  Anyway, Sophia took up your points and I
hope she helped in the matter.  You caught me when I was pressed
for time and heavily loaded.

As to knowledge of Theosophy -- I know what I said was loaded.
But to make things easier, if you know what HPB wrote, then you
are ahead of most of us.  But who would claim that ?  There is so
much already available in writing.  Now if you want to ask me for
my references to find out why I write as I do, then I will be
glad to send them so you can also look them up and corroborate
(or otherwise) what I say.  And that's all I am after.  To be
checked out.

There are hundred of sympathetic friends of Theosophy, who, to my
mind need to steep themselves in the theory and the teachings
that the Masters through HPB offered:  What I mean is:

Are there seven Principles in Man and nature ?  If so how do they
interact ?

Is there a general LAW -- whether called Karma or something
else -- that unified the Worlds, mankind, the Galaxies and the
atoms ?

Can it be "broken ?"  is it "partial? or complete ?"

Does the SPIRIT exists (at least as a logical base) ?

What is the "soul of man, and if it exists, what are it powers
and nature ?

What is the psychic nature as distinct from th mental ?

Is Reincarnation reasonable ?

Is the perfectibility of all nature a potential possibility ?

Are the "Masters of Wisdom" Imaginary or possibly facts ?

In my esteem:

We do Theosophy no good if we don't seize that opportunity.  It
is unique for this incarnation.  All of us ought to seize it and
make use of it for the future -- at least as "mental furniture
for 'Devachanic meditation.'"

If we delude ourselves that there is some easy approach to
Theosophy through some other writer/s, then we may make a serious
error, as most writers have a built-in filter -- their own
ignorance, or their inability to express the depths of what
Theosophy can offer -- (and that includes me of course).

Yes I considered your comment on the turnip humorous -- I tried
to visualize an intelligence encased in a "turnip" with enough of
a "mind" to have self-consciousness, and simply couldn't.
Instinctive and vegetative consciousness, yes.  But how would you
define that ? I think that Soph did a fine job answering.

I usually wait and see if the answers that are generated lead to
what Theosophy has to say on a subject before I chip in.  And
sometimes I am impatient -- and always seem to get long-winded !

Best wishes,            Dallas

I still admire your power of thinking. Suggest, you direct it to
making a series of related questions, so that the logic emerges.

> Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 3:03 AM
> From: "Kym Smith" <>
> Subject: No cost, no obligation

>Dallas wrote to Kym:
>>The reason for that in not unwillingness, but the fact that you
>>do not seem to have the basic ideas of Theosophy at your
>If you say so, Dallas.
>>I do not have the time to argue with you.
>Then don't.  There is no requirement nor expectation on my part
that you
>respond to my postings.  You are right: time is saved and
arguments are
>avoided when exchanges are between those who tend to agree with
each other.

WE need to define the precise area of disagreement.

Best wishes as always,    Dallas


>(sigh) Oh, well. . .I tried.
>  I am interested in
>>what Theosophy has to say on various subjects.  I have proved,
>>myself, that there is truth and verity in Theosophical source
>>doctrines, but not in later writings by students who followed
>>HPB, and especially in those who have written after her death
>>were "unsupervised," so to say, by the older and more advanced
>>students, or her.  ( And this ought to include what I write as
>>well.  And that is why I quote the references from which I draw
>>inferences to answer questions. )  I look for the precedents
>>by HPB and W Q Judge, and use them as explanations for
>>that arise.  In so doing I offer areas where there is the
>>of Theosophical doctrine.  I will admit that there are new
>>questions and objections all the time, however, I have found
>>familiarity with those basic doctrines gives the careful and
>>sincere student the necessary keys to unlock the doors of
>>understanding for himself.  It is better that way that placing
>>reliance on someone else.
>>I feel sometimes like a librarian would, showing others where
>>find the answers they seek, but not participating in the
>>I hope you understand what I am trying to say.  It is not the
>>first time that I have rubbed up against your queries, and
>>objections.  So I thought I would take time out  and explain to
>>you my policy and procedure.
>>With best wishes,            Dallas
>>- -----Original Message-----
>>From: "Kym Smith" <>
>>Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 2:27 AM
>>Subject: Lords of Karma Management Plans
>>>Dallas wrote:
>>>>Kym -- humor aside, the veggie "karma" is not
individualized --
>>>Excuse me, but Dallas, are you implying I am engaged in
>>jocularity regarding
>>>a vegetable's karma? Personally, my heart wails with grief
>>the little
>>>turnip's plight - it is destined to become, well, poop! or, as
>>you artfully
>>>wrote "being rejected and rotting" - that AND being required
>>haul a load
>>>of karma along seems way too mean a fate for the little
>>I will,
>>>however, apologize on your behalf to the vegetable kingdom for
>>>>it is a kind of group karma in which the individual monads
>>>>undergo a vast period of experience as parts of the animal
>>>>vegetable and mineral kingdoms -- through the constant
>>>>interchange of atoms and molecules (or rather the
>>>>focus (we use the word Monad) that is experiencing).
>>>But still, this doesn't seem fair nor right.  It seems the
>>Catholics -
>>>enviously possessed of attractive attire - are sort of on the
>>right track
>>>with that "age of consent" business.  They say one is
>>responsible for
>>>"free-will decisions" after age seven (way too early, if you
>>me, but
>>>that's beside the point).  Why should there be such a thing as
>>>karma" (group karma) if the turnip (or group of turnips)
>>>Although you did say that there is no "individualization" of
>>karma for the
>>>turnip, you did seem to say that there was still some being
>>generated - yes?
>>>Maybe there are two types of karma?  Karma which is the
>>"causation" (part of
>>>the creative force) and karma that is generated by "free-will
>>>causes?"  No?
>>>I must say Jerry and Alan do have convincing points in that
>>>(karma) should be experienced very soon after the action in
>>order for one to
>>>learn and understand fully what one is supposed to learn and
>>>fully.  It really does not make sense that a human is dealing
>>with the
>>>consequences of events that happened eons ago - this very
>>process adds to
>>>the frustration of humanity and is reflected in the rise of
>>>religions and cults.  Popular reasons for our suffering
>>"God is
>>>testing you/us." or "If Eve hadn't eaten the apple, humanity
>>wouldn't be in
>>>the trouble they are in." or "There is a hell." or "There is a
>>heaven." or
>>>"God is dead."
>>>It would seem that The Big Cheese or The Big Cheese's Helpers
>>>aliens, or other such beings) would have known such a
>>misunderstanding would
>>>take place as a result of such a Karma plan.  If the Lords of
>>Karma are
>>>shaking their heads wondering why humanity just ain't gettin'
>>it - they've
>>>really only themselves, or the Big One, to blame.  This is the
>>problem with
>>>having the SAME IMMORTAL BEINGS being in control for a long
>>period of time -
>>>we need look only at China or the corporate world for examples
>>of "the ole'
>>>boys network" needing a revamp.  I think we need to elect new
>>leaders - NEW
>>>Lords of Karma and NEW Mahatmas and New All Other Big-Wigs.
>>>>Our chief barrier at present is the lack of knowledge of
>>>>the ethical effects of our choices and actions.
>>>Nicely put.  But why the barrier in the first place?  Why was
>>the material
>>>seemingly able to overshadow the spiritual?  If things really
>>are such gravy
>>>on the spiritual side, why so easy to forget that gravy once
>>the flesh?
>>>Why choose the flesh over the spiritual?
>>>>Anything else ?
>>>Uh. . .is this a trick question. . .or are you simply being

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application