Re: Re: Dr. Bain and "Real Evidence"
Jun 22, 1998 10:13 PM
by Annette Rivington
W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
> June 22nd
> Re: quotes
WHEW. Boy can you ever write! Just quickly to let you know that I have
read all this posting and have saved it as I believe it's a mini
Theosophy course for an outsider like me. Well received and thank you.
A few general comments so you can then relax (yes, that is a kindly
> (We are
> all such "rays," but we do not all feel or think we are. If so,
> why ?)
Because even though we all "came in" knowing we are, the physical is
either so seductive or so overpowering that we forget and have to
"learn" it or rather "release" it again. I mean, if a four year old
child can describe how it all works and feels but shuts up for a
lifetime when the system tells them a few dozen times "no you don't know
that or anything else yet" there's something pretty chronic at work
here! That "we are all such rays" is not a point of debate for me, the
mystery for me as yet is ..... why go through this physical process at
all, and why not able to remember the original state except when in an
altered state? Remember, I and many others have experienced the
kundalini (sorry I can't spell) release to some extent, and the escape
from the body to the state of light or plasma, (and it's bloody hard to
come back and do one's laundry in all seriousness).
> 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.
p.s I know how holograms work so point taken. What I want to know
is....why the experience of fragmentation at all? Why take universal
energy and split it into parts with consciousness so that then one must
labour to "see" it whole again?
> How are those to be contacted and when
> contacted, recognized ?
Exactly! By non-physical means. So why the physical lesson? And why
the doubt when the non-physical happens?
> 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 ?"
By being free (of needs, fears, indoctrinations). If one returns to the
purity of the new born, one simply "knows".
Exactly what you said later, I believe.
> 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."
Exactly....so why do we begin? Why do we forget from whence we came and
even start this never ending repetitive process of getting back "home"?
And why are we so stupid that we get stuck in our own nets? Hoisted on
our own petards? Imprisoned in webs of our own weaving? Victims of the
base vices when we are born with knowledge of the highest virtues?
The principles you delineate have been described as admirably by all of
what we now call "indigenous people". This is my only point. It is not
that I refuse to accept the labels or that I disagree with the ideas.
Although .... the "transference" may not be as easy as intimated.
> 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 ?
We are going home. When we recognize a path that feels right we take it
Still doesn't answer why we choose to leave home in the first place!
> The "Nrmanakaya" is a designation given to indicate a
Thank you for the explanation. I have seen the pages to which you refer
and did not linger or retain because of the illustration that seemed
bounded by "man-made" physical concepts. I will have to revisit!
> 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.
I am glad that you used this example because it illustrates what I am
trying to say. This is life we are talking about here. Every person
comes in with the ability to understand life and to experience love and
peace. It simply takes many years to speak it in the language of here
(and it feels like if one isn't quick enough to spit it out and cement
it in early on so that a great life manifests for one, it's an uphill
climb back)! What is this thing about "desiring to reach a level of
understanding"? Why have we taken such a simple beautiful thing and
made it so complex that the "ordinary" person has to "learn the steps"?
Why, having come from pefection, have we manifest "blood, sweat and
tears" and on top of that, have imprisoned ourselves in a reality that
tells us it may take us eons to achieve what we long for? For goodness
sakes why, when as children we simply went into our "imagination" and
experienced universal, unconditional, blissful, fearless, all-loving and
eternal BEING. (that is until some other human told us or showed us
pain, fear, hate and submission).
Re the list of "posits".....
No debate on content. So, why doesn't everyone live this?
I am hoping that reading the books I purchased yesterday will shed some
light for me. "The Children of the Law of One & The Lost Teachings of
Atlantis", and "The Golden Bough".
> 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 ?
Yes, yes and yes.
> 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 ?
Neither fragmentary, nor unsatisfactory. I don't feel a variance, but
then I wouldn't, would I :)
The bridge to understanding between you and I (for others maybe
different) may be this.....
I am way behind you in reading, thinking and understanding. I only know
one thing for sure....that I (and thus, I believe, everyone) "knew" all
of this at birth and expected life here to be as perfect as I knew it
could and should be. Personally, Life so far has been one hell of a
shock and disappointment. I see it as a "backwards slide". I don't
take kindly to things that regress from a point of perfection. I am not
looking for a "recipe" to explain how it works or how to make myself or
others "better". I am seeking an understanding of WHY PHYSICAL LIFE AT
ALL? If perfect why create imperfect? If universal, why fragment?
Is it simply for the experience? Because, you see, if so, then every
experience - war; famine; lust; evil; murder etc as well as all the
"good" things has to exist for all time. I CANNOT ACCEPT that!!!!!
I REMEMBER being a child. I remember knowing that I had to take
responsibility and well as have fun. I remember knowing that life was
service as well as receipt, that others mattered as much as myself, that
I was an integral part of the earth and everything beyond, that reality
wasn't the only plane around, that all I neeeded to know and all I
needed to have was there for me and that it wasn't without a price.
What I don't remember is why I chose to come here :)
Having taken up quite enough of your's and everyone else's time, adieu
and thanks, dear Dallas.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application