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

Dal's questions

Jun 13, 1998 06:47 PM
by Dr A M Bain

W. Dallas TenBroeck <>asks a number of questions,
and so I respond from my own observations and experiences as an
occultist of over 40 years practice.

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

Yes there are, but they don't interact.  The same seven principles simply
behave differently in different circumstances.  Including turnips.
>Is there a general LAW -- whether called Karma or something
>else -- that unified the Worlds, mankind, the Galaxies and the
>atoms ?

Yes.  I think perhaps you meant to type "unifies" - the 's' on the
keyboard has always been too close to the 'd' :-)

Some call this LAW "God" which is fair enough if we do not attribute
human characteristics to "God."
>Can it be "broken ?"  is it "partial? or complete ?"

It is complete, and cannot be broken, though it appears to rearrange its
components on a regular basis through all seven principles (and planes).
>Does the SPIRIT exists (at least as a logical base) ?

Same thing. "God" is "Breath" [Latin Spiritus, Greek Pneuma]. We, as
individual are "breaths." [pl.]
>What is the "soul of man, and if it exists, what are it powers
>and nature ?

There are two concepts of "soul."  One equates with the
"astral/etheric" double, and is temporal and reactive.  The other
contains this, but extends "upwards" to include "mind" - understood as
the ability to viualise and interpret (not always correctly!). As far as
theosophical "lower manas" maybe.
>What is the psychic nature as distinct from th mental ?

Psychic nature is "lower manas" and below. Mental nature is "higher
manas" and above - while we are in incarnation.  Eventually, all
indications seem to show, "higher manas" will be absorbed into yet
higher principles.
>Is Reincarnation reasonable ?

Reasonable where necessary or desirable, otherwise not.
>Is the perfectibility of all nature a potential possibility ?

Perfection is a human concept.  So far as LAW is concerned,
everything is always just as it is.  Love is real, *and* shit happens.
>Are the "Masters of Wisdom" Imaginary or possibly facts ?
There are higher intelligences (non-incarnate) who might be so
described, but they are "masters" or "adepts" in particular areas of the
larger scheme of things.  Sometimes they work through living human
beings, but their messages are always garbled by the "lower" functions
of their intermediaries.  Also, they are in the same situation as "adepts"
on earth.  A Master Builder cannot do the work of a Master Goldsmith.

Most of those who work with humanity appear (note "appear") to be
former human beings.  Maybe they all are, but I have met one or two
who seem never to have incarnated here - which doesn't rule out the
possibilty of their having human characteristics.


All of us on the lists spend a great deal of time in discussion and debate.
Very few seem to have (I hope I am wrong) direct experience of the
things we debate.  I have related short versions of just two of my own
experiences.  Why don't we all try to share what we know and have
found (as we see it) and quote "sources" a damn sight less often.

The sources (insofar as TS writings are concerned) are all over the
web, and there are many many links to them via the TI website (see
below).  Any of us with a web browser can go get them.  In my own
opinion, much of what is available is misleading, to say the least, but I
also believe it needs to be read and to be studied.  Often by puzzling
over what doesn't make sense to us, we, "the cracked" as Pam puts it,
we get to find the sense and the true light enters.

Other sources are the gnostic, kabbalist, and various religious writings,
also all over the web.  None of it is 100% "true".  Turning the other
cheek, for example, may work according to theory, but it can also get
you slapped on both cheeks and more besides. This I can definitely


[Back to Top]

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