Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00393)

W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net> writes
>June 15th 1998
>
>Thanks Alan:
>
>Some comments added below        --        Dallas

And I intersperse some more - Alan
>
>==========================================
>
>>W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net>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.
>
>=========================================
>
>According to HPB they do interact because they are areas where
>the ONE CONSCIOUSNES -- the Atma -- uses, either consecutively or
>separately, all all together -- "thus have I heard"

It amounts to the same thing, as all seven principles are integrally part of
the One Consciousness, so HPB and I agree!

Consciousness is Being.  Awareness is a function of Consciousness.
>
>==========================================
>
>>>
>>>Is there a general LAW -- whether called Karma or something
>>>else -- that unifies the Worlds, mankind, the Galaxies and the
>>>atoms ?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>>-----------------------------------
>>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.]
>-------------------------
>agreed
>--------------------------
>>>
>>>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.
>
>========================================
>
>Agreed  -- equivalents:  Kama and Manas  (desire and Mind )
>
>========================================
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>AGREED
>
>
>>>Is Reincarnation reasonable ?
>>
>>Reasonable where necessary or desirable, otherwise not.
>>
>==================================
>
>WHAT'S THE "OR NOT ?"    Desire some enlightenment

We can move on to other worlds, other planes - call them what you
will.  It is a vast Universe, with plenty of room for all.  I suspect that
some of us reincarnate for "necessary" (To us or our chosen Work)
reasons, some because we liked it here.  Being a species whose chief
and universal characteristic is clearly curiousity - people who are dying
often say something like, "Hello! What's happening here then?" then it
seems that departing souls (note) are most likely to "move on" to a
"somewhere else" via what appears to the inner vision (language is a
bummer) as a sudden and brief bright light opening a gap in the
darkness.
>
>=====================================
>
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>================================
>
>I meant "Reason"

You lost me here - elucidate?
>
>==================================
>
>>>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.
>===============================================
>
>I agree we ue the designation "Masters" only to indicate
>proficiency as comparedtoour capacities in use.
>
>As I understand the Theosophical scheme, the progression from man
>to wise-man is graded by the individual who is teaching himself
>what Nature already has innately.
>
>Tio me it stands to reason that a band of Wise men would work
>together and to assist humanity as individuals thereof towards
>their own limprovement and learning.

Except they would not see themselves as "Wise Men" but students!
>
>===================================
>>_____________
>>
>>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, 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 confirm!
>======================================
>
>CORRECT  == there are many "paths" to the mystic (or actual)
>GOAL.  That is something that ISIS UNVEILED and later the S D
>seem to expose, so that we can grasp the similarity of the
>fundamentals of all those religions we are now aware of.
>
> I do not think the words are all that important but th ias are.
>
>I also agree that each in their search for "the TRUTH" appear to
>rove al over the map -- but is not the striving of value -- for
>them, and for us toobserve and correlate to our own strivings ?
>
>Dallas
>>
Precisely, it is the STRIVING that matters far more than the language
we use to express it.  I writing my original comments, I mentally
"translated" from Kabbalist terminology the Theosophical terminology
for some of it.  Kabbalah is, for me, kind of like the "Rosetta Stone" of
Occultism.  All other systems fit into it.  Some would no doubt say the
same of Theosophy, or Wigglosophy or any other "ism" or "osophy".

As I learned in my miniscule part in showbiz, "if it works, keep it in the
act."

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk