Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00535)

June 22nd

Re:  quotes

Disadvantage is that they are indeed snippets -- ideas that
seemed important to me or illustrative of some Theosophical
perspective. I know that not all may see them the same way I do.
But the fact that they raise questions is good for all of us.

Since readers may wish to find out more about the source and
place of those snippets, I give a source from which they came and
to which they can be restored to get that perspective.

It is inevitable that we all generate our own views.  Sameness is
not a good basis.  But inquiry is.

Annette:  you sorted out the quote on "Whoever wants to see the
real Mahatmas...."  [ A "real" Mahatma, means to me a designation
meaning a "Great soul."  a Wise soul.  In the Theosophic scheme,
a mind (Manas) linked with Buddhi (Wisdom and able to see any
aspect of Nature at will) and ATMAN -- or conscious of being
linked with--or a "ray" of--the UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTENESS.  (We are
all such "rays," but we do not all feel or think we are.  If so,
why ?)

Expansion in perception is true, but also there is a deepening.
In fact direction, as I see it, has no real meaning -- if we use
the "holographic" idea, then every part, however small, is or
represents the WHOLE.  But for the "part" to be "conscious"of the
WHOLE is another thing.  A different dimension and not linear or
spiritual or time altering, as I see it.

"Intellectual sight" -- well what do we see with ?  The eyes are
instruments, the retina transfers visions of color from
impressions to electro-magnetic vibrations that are transmitted
to appropriate places in the brain.  The brain in turn is the
"screen" where the Seer sees the images. senses colors,
motion, -- or smells scents, or hears a symphony, or a cacophony,
or touches a sharp knife or a blunt club, etc.   The Seer is the
one who is "conscious."  He/it can turn his attention from the
passing scene to the scene of memory, or, using imagination and
fancy can picture a development which the present vision and the
mental image of past experience allows him to elaborate in
outline as a "goal."   He can also shut off all these and,
turning inward ,contact the astral realm and see visions from
that.  But beyond and within the astral is the mental, and then
the spiritual.   How are those to be contacted and when
contacted, recognized ?

But how does the Seer act?  Is it not the desire and the will
which direct the attention of the Conscious unit one way or the
other?  Then who monitors "desire ?" and how does the will that
selects and choose decide on a plan of action ?  How does one
decide that a certain plan is either selfish and dangerous to the
ultimate well-being of the Unit, or unselfish, tolerant,
benevolent and hence harmless to the environment as to the
"Chooser ?"

"Elevate" in the sense that figuratively "virtue" is held
"superior" to "base" vice.  Then what makes the difference
between vice and
virtue ?  Is it the arbitrary "laws of the land ?" or is there in
each of us a "monitor that KNOWS,"  (regardless of race,
religion, sex, caste, color or creed)  and we all know, deep in
our hearts that this vision is unitary and common to all of us,
and not diverse -- no matter how much we may argue that our view
is the correct one for us.  It is not an easy problem to decide
on.  How is it that we can travel and live and work with people
in any land, the laws of which we do not know, and if we behave
decently, we do not fall afoul of their "laws ?"

"Mist" to me implies exactly the differences of opinion we have
been speaking of, which have to be dispelled by and agreement for
mutual knowledge and understanding, to give "clarity of
perception" and therefore induce spontaneously to "right action."
Where shall we all secure that unity of perception we can all
agree on as being optimum?  Is it not in impersonality and
universality ?  The old adage:  "that which is right, is right
all the time, for everyone and in all places and circumstances."
I don't think we can get to be much broader.

The other day In National Geographic I came across a statement
made by a Nepalese fisherman, who was also a chaser after the
honey that wild bees store in their combs on high trees in the
forests.  He said:  We begin our lives by weaving a fishnet.  We
end our life before ever finishing it.  We are always weaving
this net and forever fixing it."

The 6th principle in Theosophy is "Buddhi" universal wisdom
concerning right and harmonious, brotherly and harmless thought
and action.  It is universal fairness, justice and mercy.  It
takes all factors into account and perceives directly what is the
best thing to be done.  [ Remains for the "mind-Manas" to seize
the vision and the opportunity to carry out those ideas. The
opponent to Manas is also interior:  Kama-desire, selfishness
self-interest, ignorance and indolence.]

The 7th Principle is Atma --the Universal Spirit.  Which cannot
be described but has only one attribute:  The light of purity.
The theory is that all evolution is centered on securing for each
"life-atom" in manifested Nature the opportunity to experience
all the many aspects of living, and then of acquiring
intelligence in great and progressive increments.  The objective
being, in general, that the individual intelligent life-atoms
acquire by voluntary and free efforts the entire knowledge and
wisdom that is inherent in the whole of the Universe.  that they
become each of them in their time and turn a Universal Being,
with a full awareness of all that is living in the entire
Universe.  Overwhelming as a concept.  perhaps.  But I ask you in
all seriousness.  Where is the center of my consciousness or
yours ?  I don't think we can locate it in any way except
conceptually.

I also agree that some of the Theosophical terminology is
extraordinary to our daily life work and experience, unless we
work in the department of philosophy or religion in a University,
or a publishing house that deals with that kind of material.  But
the ideas are applicable (by transference and adaptation) to
daily life.  They are of no value or use otherwise.  But, for me,
I have found that Theosophy provides (to me) a reasonable answer
for all kinds of problems and questions.  I think that in the
course of this somewhat lengthy lifetime I have become a better
person and also, I have worked in that direction as best I could.
No one can speak for anyone but themselves.

It is interesting that something in us responds to those ideas,
and desires to understand more.  I wonder why ?  What is it ?
Where are we going ?

The "Nrmanakaya" is a designation given to indicate a
spiritualized and highly moral and intelligent mind-man.  It is a
technical designation used in both Hinduism and Buddhism (with
the Pali modifications) to designate a very wise being who
retains his ability to live (minus a physical body) consciously
and coherently on the invisible (astral, psychic, mental and
spiritual) planes of Nature.  [An embodied Nirmanakaya is a
Mahatma.]  Those are the 7 planes that Theosophy speaks about and
has codified so that they can be understood.  They correspond to
the "seven principles in man."  If you have a copy of the Secret
Doctrine, turn to page 200 in Vol. 1, and look at the 7 planes
illustrated there.  In Vol. 2 p. 593, 632, and Vol. 1, p. 157 the
7  "principles" of man are also illustrated and explained.

Like every real philosophy Theosophy has its own language so that
students can exchange ideas quickly and accurately.  Perhaps, to
make it easier for us, HPB wrote the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, and there
you will find that she took the pains to lead us to see the logic
behind the Theosophical psychological approach that shows how our
faculties are arranged.  [ In the KEY these will be found on pp.
91, 134, 175 and the explanations are in between, if you are
interested. ]

Example:  if we were advanced mathematical students, or
astro-physicists, you and I, we would deal in equations, which to
the average person would be sheer abracadabra.  But if that
person desired to reach a level of understanding comparable to
ours (as theoretical mathematicians ) he could do so by following
the steps we took to learn.  Mind you, I am not saying that these
two are fully comparable, but, theosophy has been called the
mathematics of the Soul.

What is the difference between a Nirmanakays and a physical body.
The Nirmanakaya uses the "astral substance" on which the physical
molecules and atoms arrange themselves.  He does this
consciously.  Our use of the astral body is almost entirely
automatic.  We do not yet have the exact knowledge to handle
"astral matter."  We often feel in the astral plane, as in
dreams, or trances, or in the visions that we have now and then,
but few pay close attention to the event, and perhaps fewer yet,
have the knowledge that enables them to actually handle and
direct at will such things.  The Nirmanakaya has this power and
uses it for good.  To the average man this is a wonder, something
miraculous and it has been so down the ages, witness the accounts
of such things that HPB gives in ISIS UNVEILED.

Karmic law is vast and intricate, and includes us all.  A
Nirmanakaya can see it in operation and would not interfere where
such interference is either unnecessary or dangerous to any of
the beings involved.  Harmlessness is the first criterion of the
Nirmanakaya condition. (This as I understand it.)

All who approach Theosophy to learn from it about themselves, and
the rest of nature, and its secret operations, are benefiting
from the knowledge and help of the Nirmanakayas and the Mahatmas.
The promulgation of Theosophy is a demonstration of that.  It is
a tall claim, but if you do study what it says, you will conclude
that it does a few good things:

It posits the immortality of all human Spirit/souls.

It posits justice and mercy in the Universe -- there is no doing
of good or evil and then escaping from the direct results of
that, sooner or later.

It posits universal Evolution of consciousness.

It posits universal intelligence.  It sees a direct relationship
between an atom of some mineral elementary substance to day, and
the eventual man, or the "god-like" intelligence that may develop
over aeons of years of experience, and that will eventually take
that same "life-atom" to Buddhahood.

It therefore speaks of reembodiment and reincarnation.

It speaks of a primeval source.

It speaks of an ultimate Goal of perfect realization of all that
can be known and lived in our Universe.

It speaks of the interaction of all beings on all planes,
physical, astral, psychic, mental, spiritual and super-spiritual.

It speaks of universal laws that regulate all this.

Where does it speak of anything that debases, minimizes or
destroys the existence of any being ?  Where does it in its grand
natural sweep, envisage the torture and hurting in a senseless
manner hundreds and thousands of relatively harmless beings ?  It
does say that when this occurs it is a perversion of the noble
mental faculty by those, who through ignorance distort themselves
and their perceptions.

We speak, commonly, of a "hell."  Well , don't we create  our own
? What does it ?  Is it not selfishness, ignorance, fear, and a
false concept of pleasure and enjoyment.  The idea of
separateness creates all the problems of life.  But if we take it
that we are all interconnected and that we depend all the time on
others for our own living, then, does it not make a change ?
suppose that oxygen no longer supported life, or that water no
loner hydrated us, or that carbon compounds and proteins refused
to nourish us -- how long could we "live ?"  Nature provides us
with a very intricate tenement, and we are not very good tenants,
living in it.  We are even extremely ignorant (usually) of our
bodies and their functioning.

Yes we do have freedom.  But that freedom ought not to harm
others.  If in the exercise of that freedom we hurt others then a
law far more powerful that we are, causes our suffering.  We do
live in a unified universe, even if we think we don't.  It is the
very nature of all the "life-atoms" that we impress to retain a
memory of how we used them.  When they return to us the return
with the memory of our assistance or abuse, and the provide us
then with ease or disease and accidents.  This is the law of
universal karma in action.  But who ever thinks that minuscule
and lowly atom has any great power to assist or annoy us ?
theosophy says it does.  At least , it is a point to be
considered.

The time to come and know truth comes to those who work for and
seek it.  Nothing ever comes to anyone who does not want it.

Your thought and writing is much appreciated.   I am equally sure
that my answers will prove fragmentary and unsatisfactory.  But
we need to compare basic assumptions.  Are they totally at
variance or do they approach each other ?  What are the bridges
to understanding that we can establish ?

You also make me realize that some of the quotes are, on the
whole, too "advanced," although I hate to think that.  I am one
who desires to know, and I would not wait to have knowledge
dropped on me, and not recognize it,  I want to be ready to see
and to seize it when it opens up to me.  Also I do not think that
any valuable knowledge would arrive on my doorstep if I did not
somehow deserve it. Why should it?  The problem of the
"undeserved" is a great debating point.  In the KEY TO THEOSOPHY,
HPB calls it "unmerited suffering."

Well I know I have not answered all your points, but perhaps this
might help a little,        Dal.

> Date: Saturday, June 20, 1998 5:31 PM
> From: "Annette Rivington" <libidium@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: Dr. Bain and "Real Evidence"

>Pam Giese wrote:
>> What is do you mean by "organized minds"?  Each person's mind
is uniquely
>> organized.
>> My boss actually recruits by this scheme and feels that the
"perfect team"
>> has one of each type.
>
>Snip the schema - which I was very interested in reading about
by the
>way.  Can't agree though, Pam.  I believe every person has the
ability
>to use all those types of thought processes at the same time,
and may be
>stuck in one mode because trained to do so and now it supports a
>situation in life existing because of the training, or because
it is
>easier and more comfortable to act in one mode, or because one
mode fits
>with desired results for one type of task.
>I think your boss is smart on the one hand and a pioneer on the
other
>who runs the risk of spending more time bringing cohesion to the
team
>than getting results, unless s/he uses the team not as a team
but as
>individual resources which s/he consolidates.....
>Not unlike these quotes may be used......
>
>> I think folks have been a bit hard on Dallas regarding the
quotes.  Try
>> seeing the quotes as snippets of wisdom, haiku, or dialogue in
absentia
>> rather than preaching  or quoting gospel.  I think they're
meant in this
>> way and, in humility, to add the added value of directing
folks where to go
>> for more information.
>Have to disagree again...I think people have been hard on the
quotes,
>including me, not on Dallas.  If the quotes do not provide
direction to
>more information for one, or stay with one as useful snippets of
wisdom,
>then......
>However, the very fact that they cause debate adds value, so
.....
>no contest in the long run.
>
>Appreciate your comments about education, Pam.  Dare I say,
let's face
>it, when the recent mass production age came upon us we were
responsible
>for letting education become diluted until it served one purpose
only -
>to produce workers for nations the goal of which was to be the
winner in
>the competition.  Now the public education system is going
through
>massive downsizing which will hopefully spawn a private system
that is
>affordable and all inclusive, that will in turn influence the
public
>system.
>If I am honest and realistic, and imagine a fixed amount of time
in
>conjunction with the vastly increased knowledge and skills that
now
>exist even compared to my elementary school days, I would have
>difficulty coming up with a curriculum that covers it all.
>Here's a thought - everyone in society has sufficient resources
to live
>phsyically and those who are teachers by nature just teach.  In
the
>classroom, in their homes, in the fields, on the internet, each
time the
>meet with someone who wants to learn!
>Nice to chat with you.
>Annette
>
>