Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #230
Jun 19, 1998 04:09 PM
by Dallas TenBroeck
Thanks for notes and views -- agree with most, but am puzzled by
the matter of ISIS -- I know that the proof readers and Olcott
messed up some of the material, HPB says so, and so do the
Masters in their Letters to Sinnett. But have you actually found
anything that is totally false ? I would be interested in seeing
that, if you have made notes and it is part of your study.
Yes, you are right the "Sermon on the Mount" does contain some
otherwise difficult to understand statements. But how much of
those are due to the biases of the translators. I can't read the
old Aramaic or the old Greek of the originals, Can you ? Can
either of us ascertained what was actually said. like the
Buddha, Jesus never wrote anything, so what we have in the
gospels is only translated hear-say -- and many Biblical Scholars
have of recent years been devoting a lot of time to revising
those translation in the light of the Nag Hemadri Scrolls and
the Dear Sea Scrolls.
These days we have almost too much information and not enough
time to verify what others claim to be able to discern. So we
say to ourselves: He or she is an expert and they must be right.
Ah yes. But what does common sense say ? And that does not
operate on the basis of the "letter of the law, but seeks the
"spirit," and the equity of the situation as a basis (like
Solomon) to make judgment on.
As to regaining the innocence of the child -- I will agree too,
as our "adult" thinking has departed from that simplicity into
many ways of excusing its convoluted justifications for actions
and thoughts that break the laws of Nature ( or better still,
bend and distort, or exaggerate them). It is said that the
"lower self (kama-manas -- desire and mind united ) is a 'clever
lawyer.' But in the ultimate sense is it justified ?
I say no "man" who makes claims can do other than demonstrate
them or shut up. Actions speak louder than words. When HPB was
around there was plenty of "action," and plenty of
"demonstration." Also plenty of people witnessed and reported on
the "phenomena" that she performed at will.
Not everyone saw that there was a lesson to be learned from what
she did for them, nor were any "lessons" invariably learned. If
they thought they were being entertained or mystified, they
erred. She demonstrate that the human WILL is able to cause many
things to take place without physical apparatus, or
prestidigitation. No pupil can learn more than his acuity
permits. How do we develop acuity ? I do not mean that we
should be either credulous or superstitious. Neither lead to
understanding, any more than curiosity does. I recall an
incident rather late in her life when a student came to her and
begged her to perform for him one of her phenomena. she
answered: "You would not know one if you saw it." Another
person present noticed that the unlit cigarette she held causally
in her fingers had lighted itself without matches. Then there is
that famous case of the German professor who visited her
(unannounced) in Benares, and mentioned on leaving her, that he
had heard that the Vedic sages had been able to cause a rain of
flowers on demand. She raised her hand those who were there said
and a shower of fresh cut roses with the dew still on them
poured down from the ceiling one of them bouncing off his nose !
If one desired to catalog all the phenomena she performed and
which was witnessed, we would have a sizeable volume to deal
with. And that could be done as a project. But it would not
make anyone wiser, as to the nature of Theosophy. Phenomena does
not prove philosophy. And that is important. Only logic proves
the probability of a philosophical or logical problem being
solvable. It is like the stories told of Apollonius of Tyanna,
(He is an historical figure and lived within one hundred years of
Jesus's ministry, which incidentally, was far more than 3
years -- he died at the age of about 80 say contemporary texts --
Sepher Toldos Jesu). And Apollonius' feats and 'miracles' (many
of which were seized on by the early church fathers and
attributed to the non-historical Jesus, as they developed a
mythology around his words and presence), were attested to by
many historical figures of early Rome. He was the friend and
confident of emperors and kings, much as St. Germain was at the
time just preceding the French Revolution, which he was
unsuccessful in averting.
In a way this is similar to the lessons that our Karma offers us
to learn from. I mean that if something comes unexpectedly to
us, good or bad, we ought to ask why. In what way do I deserve
this ? How many actually do this. Plato in the dialog THE LAWS
hints at this rather pointedly.
"The Ear of God ?" Well if there is no "god" that operates
outside of the laws of the Universe, the Mahatmas, Jesus, etc...
all operate within the boundaries of the Laws of our Universe,
and we do not yet know all of them (I mean those Laws). Why
should anyone desire, or depend on miracles ( if by miracle you
man the breaking of the laws of nature) without any relation to
individual circumstances, and the place, time, past or future --
but, by definition that is not so, nor does the Universe run
chaotically. WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW ALL THAT THERE IS IN THE way
of laws in our UNIVERSE. But we can learn about it, them and
behave (morally and ethically) in accordance with what we know.
Do we deny fairness, ethics, justice to others as to ourselves ?
Science depends in all its work on the absolute rigidity of th
operation of Law in all of nature's operations that they
investigate -- or let us say that it is all a mess, and wasted
time, and stop talking, arguing or developing anything
constructive out of the turbulence we live in. But, there is
something in us, too, which says THERE IS a LAW THAT IS COMMON TO
ALL OF US, and we have to find and use it.
I believe that a priest like father Damien on Molokai,or sister
Theresa in Calcutta, are outstanding examples of human sanctity
regardless of the "religion" they happen to burden themselves
with. Many other examples could be advanced. And let's put them
in contrast with a Jack the Ripper, a Hitler, a Genghis Khan, or
a Manson -- and that is only to make a point, as the back streets
in any city today, will reveal similar but less powerful entities
who use the human shape to destroy and torture others. But why
deal with the horrors when we can deal with the excellencies ?
You are perfectly right that those who do not yet know how to
think themselves out of their self-imposed plight and who suffer
mental tortures and emotional upheavals try to drown themselves
in insensibility -- for them the passage of time is an agony.
Incidentally have you ever read the booklet THE GATES OF GOLD ?
It was written by the same Adept who wrote THE LIGHT ON THE PATH.
It illustrates some of the self-created inner tempest that an
untamed psychic and emotional nature creates. But why is it that
we seek stability ? What even causes the idea to arise -- if all
is chaos and instability ?
Now I am going to offer a solution (theosophical) which modern
psychology (that apologizes for the extremes and exaggerations of
an unbridled psyche (id, etc...) ) speaks of and does not (I
The septenary nature of each human being has to be studied and
grasped as a basic concept. (This is provided by Theosophy and
will be found explained in the KEY.) and, incidentally you are
not going to get much out of theosophy unless you at least become
familiar with its philosophy, and the vision it offers of the
inner psychological soul and the mind=set of every human. (That
is my opinion, of course.) The only way out is to seize it (the
lower psyche) and make it obey the mind, and this has to be done
gently and by degrees, but, without hesitation.
We either, as mind beings, rule, or we are ruled. and being
ruled is not very pleasant. [ If the ruler is an uncontrolled
emotional and desire nature.] Of course the result is unbearable
stress and psycho-mental agony.
It helps if we start out with the idea that:
1) we are immortals--while the body can be killed, the Soul and
Spirit are never "destroyed." [ and the "agony" does not stop
until we get this idea clear and do something about it on our
own. We have to do it. No one else can do it for us.]
2) Karma, the law of justice, rules the world.
3) we get exactly what we deserve from nature that surrounds us.
4) we have the power to make changes. We are FREE TO DO THAT.
We are not asked to judge others by what we think are their
problems (as revealed to us by what we may judge their situation
to be), but to help them if we can. Each of us knows what our
problems are (unless we are mentally impaired). Anyone who crows
over another had better look to his own memories of what he or
she has done, and which the rest of the world is still ignorant
If you want you can guess at pain and suffering being unjust. I
would rather look at this world as a just and law-ruled one, and
if I or others came under trying circumstances or are afflicted,
why should we blame anyone but ourselves ? Why should we think
that we are blameless ? The theory of "accountability" is an
important one. We have a lot to answer for, each one of us.
I do not think that living dangerously is creative. Foolhardy
perhaps, but who desires self-destruction or self-impairment ?
what is that kind of philosophy based on ?
The ultimate desideratum is how do we regard ourselves.
Have we ever sat down with a blank sheet of paper and began to
tabulate our assets and our liabilities, our genius and our
ignorance, our sense of virtue versus the vice that we sense also
is part of us.
And actually make a list of all we have, and those things that we
do not, and that which we wish we had -- and I do not mean
possessions on the outside, but inner possession of character and
capacity of thought and feeling ? Trying this out is a great
revealer of what we know of ourselves. It will also show up how
many things we try to hide.Going back to the list from time to
time and revising is also a revelation to ourselves of what we
have been doing with our lives. and we don't need a degree in
psychology to do that.
As to explicit answers, when I find you throwing at me some of
words and phrases of theosophy I will know that you are studying
on your own and not just picking up my phrases and ideas. A
tennis court is not a class in philosophy. It is tennis. And
when we play that is fun, but generally it gets us nowhere in
terms of real advancement, of service to others, or of
enhancement of our own capacities. ( and I have played plenty
of ball games in my youth, too.)
Well let's continue and have what fun we can.
See if you can trace the moral effect (I don't mean customary or
sectarian morals, but ETHICS on a universal scale) in regard to
those Theosophical ideas that trouble you.
Theosophy is a new style of thinking. and it is not very
complimentary to the "lower self.!" I happen, after many years
of testing to think that theosophy is the best way of looking at
our world that I have yet found. It includes just about every
aspect of life and all the potentials I can think of. Now you
try it out.
Best wishes as always, Dal.
> Date: Friday, June 19, 1998 1:39 PM
> From: "Kym Smith" <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #230
>>Speaking for myself. I am quite able to express myself without
>>quotations as you may have noticed from my various postings.
>I certainly have, Dallas. And I appreciate it - however, your
>than your person, has become a "symbol" in the battle regarding
"to quote or
>not to quote."
>It's called "fame," I think - and it does have its drawbacks.
Sorry I can't claim any -- only problems. In my own eyes I know
that I am quite ignorant. What I have learned I put out for
others to use, or not, as they may decide. Hopefully it makes
sense to some. D.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application