Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00162)

> From: "Alpha (Tony)" <alpha@dircon.co.uk>
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:57:32 +0100 (BST)
> Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #323
>
> >
>  kymsmith@micron.net wrote:
>
> >
> >First, my simplest reason:  Animals.  I have a dog who has never suffered -
> >now she may think she has suffered because I delayed four minutes one time
> >giving her a treat - but in the context of suffering we are talking about
> >here, she has never known anguish.  Yet, she is the most gentle and loving
> >being I know.  Gentle with all creatures, young and old.  She responds to my
> >joy with her own joy and she responds to my sadness with her own sadness.
> >Why should a creature such as she have to incarnate into humandom?  Many
> >will respond immediately with the answer: Consciousness.  I believe she has
> >consciousness, but for sake of argument here I will accept she does not -
> >(again, though, I do believe she does have it).

Of course she has consciousness Kym,  there is NO difference between the soul of a
dog and that of a human or any other animal.  You might drive a car, I might ride a
bike, you might fly an aeroplane, me an helicopter. The difference is the BODY or
form only.  The better the form the more able YOU are to manifest the power and
consciousness of your soul.  If you were put into the body of Dog, you would act
like a dog and think like a dog etc. because that is all that the Dogs body will
allow you to do.  If you drive a car you can't fly it, if you fly a plane you can't
go to the moon in it.  It is JUST THE BODY.

AND it has nothing whatsoever to do with EVOLUTION.   It has to do with the round
of existence caused by at least 3 factors, A) Karma, B) Randomness and C) cos it's
your turn.  In a universe of competition this is how the playing field is set
level.  It doesn't look very fair over the short term but over the long, we can see
how it works out.   Not that we like it much.


> Surely your dog has consciousness, but then so do trees,

Consciousness  comes in at least 3 forms.  1 it is the expression of the soul
through the body, this is the consciousness of the individual, 2) The consciousness
of God, that permeates all, 3) The consciousness of God that  is displayed through
Form.

> metals, rust,
> rocks, a blade of grass, a buddha, and everything else on and in the planet,
> and possibly both of us.  It will be surprising if others disagree.

Well I do, it's claptrap.  Rust and Metal is NOT self conscious.  Of course the
force and consciousness of God  permeates it and is it, but it (rust, metal etc.)
has no "individual" volition.  Yes the life force of the world runs through it, and
the Earth Deva's consciousness runs through it.  But no it is not conscious in the
sense that you and I are.

> It is
> said that dogs are like their owners, so it is good to meet you in that
> particular arena.
>
> >Why should a creature such as she have to incarnate into humandom?
> The simple answer is evolution.

Nothing to do with evolution.  The Soul does not and cannot evolve.  Only bodies
"evolve".  The soul is eternal, full of knowledge and bliss, this is covered and
limited by the forms it inhabits and Prakti. (The inferior energy of God/material
nature).

> You should love your  pets as you would your closest friend.  She is the same as
> you.  A learned Sage sees in all beings the Soul and Supersoul, seeing this he is
> equal to all.  If you can't see that it is because you haven't yet developed the
> senses to see.

Our Etheric and Astral vehicles develop with practice giving us the means to use
more and more of the souls perceptions and intelligence.  The physical body also
develops.

> Which brings me to my next reason why I wonder about the value of suffering:
>
> When once the possibilities of a more spiritual life can be seen, it seems
> living in this world is suffering, however happy a life a person may be
> leading.

Suffering is part of the matrix of this Prakti universe.  You can't escape it by
living as a material being, we have old age, disease and death on all the planes
and levels of this universe.  The initiation of suffering is self inflicted.  We
have joined this hellish dance of life by our own choice and we are suffering for
it.  The fact there is any relief and happiness at all is the mercy of God.

We should of course try to ease suffering and help others but the best thing to do
really,  is get out of the kitchen.

>
>
> >What difference does consciousness make?  Theosophy says "All are One."
> >That our evolution has to do with recognizing our relationship to the
> >Divine.  Each of us look forward to the time when it is said "It is
> >finished" and we then turn to help others who are still in progress.  Ok,
> >fine.  But, again, what is the point?
>
> As we evolve we begin to see the point, and as we change the point appears
> to change, and yet it stays the same.  Like the sun in relation to the
> planet. So today the point seems to be: the point of evolution is to realise
> the divine plan.  To fully realise our potential.  To fully realise the
> potential of the planet, and thus the solar system, and so on.
>
> >Say, for example's sake, that "Adam and Eve" had never eaten of the "Tree of
> >Knowledge."  What would have been the horror if it had not happened?
>
> The thing is Kym, they did eat.  They may have got the timing wrong, but
> they ate, and it is difficult if not impossible to see how it could be
> otherwise.
>
> We
> >would be in the "Garden" - happy and content.  "Adam and Eve" at that time
> >had never "suffered," yet, they seemed to live well enough in harmony.  Ok,
> >again, I know that people will balk and say - "but they were no better than
> >automatons."

They were not automatons such a comment would only be made by an idiot.

> This may or may not be true.  But would "Adam and Eve" ever
> >really have wished for or missed the 'consciousness' we now seek?  There
> >would be no pain - perhaps there would be no happiness, either.  But is
> >happiness - or consciousness itself - so worthy of the price one must "pay"
> >to know it?  For those who say "Yes" - I ask, what tells you that?  What
> >makes you believe that?  Why the journey to return from whence we came - why
> >not just have remained there?

Why indeed?  I have explained this in a previous digest.

>
>
> Again, it has to be the rather unhelpful answer of the Law of Evolution.  It
> doesn't seem to be about what price one has to pay.  At this stage of our
> evolution we are in duality, and thus Adam & Eve, pleasure and pain,
> happiness and unhapiness.  Are they *really* so different when seen from the
> wider viewpoint.  Of course they are down here.  But aren't they the 2 poles
> of the same energy (or whatever it should be called)?  The more balanced we
> become, and karma helps us in this, the more just things are.

The more you go on about Evolution, the more off base you will be.  It's claptrap.

>
>
> In a tape of a Voice, speaking from outer space, it came through a local
> radio station here in London early 1970's, during a live broadcast on Flying
> Saucers, To the question: "So how do you intend to help us?"
> The Voice replies:
>
> "The only way you can be helped is not by doing for you that which you must
> do for yourself.  But possibly by guiding the way,  but indirectly not
> directly.  It is not possible to say to man: You must do this - because it
> is in the nature of man not to do this but to do something different because
> there is in the nature of man perhaps a perversity which we observe.  But
> never mind, it is possible perhaps if man uses only one thing, that is
> intelligence.  The greatest danger in man is pity.  Man has a strong feeling
> of pity for his fellow men, for suffering.  It is good but it is not the
> highest good.  In the Universe the highest good is balance, is Justice, not
> pity.  A very interesting thing, but justice is the most important element
> in the universe.  And if man will find justice, there is hope for man."
>
> >
> >And, for those who say that we would have never even been "Adam and Eve" -
> >simply "sparks" - again, I wonder, so what?  If one (spark or monad) does
> >not know anything one will not know that they do not know anything.
> >
> >What does it mean to say "It is finished?"
>
> It doesn't mean anything.  It is never finished.
>
> What is this "glory" we are
> >supposed to experience after the journey?
>
>  I freely admit, from a human
> >point of view, this "glory" is hard for the mind to grasp.  Yet, the "glory"
> >itself sounds awfully repetitious - for we are to turn around and help
> >others so they can turn around and help others so they can turn around and
> >help others.

Well not quite.  You do your bit then get out- for good. Then it's some other poor
sods turn. (If they want it).

> >
> >I am NOT saying that we should just live self-centeredly and all that
> >garbage for those concepts are concepts that arise after human incarnation -
> >what I am asking is, "In the Beginning" we came from the "One"

Rubbish.  We did not come from the one. We are ever existing individual souls.

> where I
> >assume no violence, pain, anguish, and all that other jazz existed and we
> >were already united in harmony - why the break-up?  What is the value in
> >recognizing we are living in harmony?
>
> It is tempting to answer by saying, "the "glory" itself sounds awfully
> repetitious."  It kind of gives a clue.  Going to bed at night, and getting
> up in the morning, could seem to be awfully repetitious, but it isn't. It is
> a re-awakening.
> The planet has a huge roll to play in the development of the solar system,
> and when things start moving, when we get our act together and stop acting
> so selfishly, then the solar system within us and without will be
> considerably enhanced. There is a definite feeling that at the present time
> we are holding things back.
> >
> >Until I can be assured that recognizing my relationship with the "Divine"
> >and the "glory" which is supposed to accompany that is really worth this
> >journey and the pain it entails, I find myself forced to rebel against the
> >"need for suffering" - for me and others.

There is no need to suffer, it is a consequence only of our being here.  It's no
good complaining that it burns if you
jump in a fire, it just burns.  We were warned, all of us, that this seeking self
God Hood, (the real story behind Adam and Eve) would result in strife and suffering
caused by the competition ensuing between the living souls and the environment that
would be needed to make such competition possible.  We were all asked not to leave,
we left.   We are all fools!

> >
> It doesn't come over as being like this.  "AR" in a recent mail wrote about
> compassion and wisdom.  The two would seem to be linked, inseparably (or
> otherwise).  Compassion means to suffer.
> Would you allow, that the Buddha, in his *infinite* wisdom and compassion,
> rather than going into Nirvana (or whatever name we are going to give it),
> stayed for the benefit of humanity?

Buddha  can go where he likes, seeing as the silly sod fell into yogic error.  Oh
well,  perhaps in the next Kalpa he will know better!  He can shove his Nirvana
where the sun doesn't shine.

Allan.

(In his most mischievous state for some time.)

Hey Kym, shall we hurtle a bit further in the hand basket?

>
>
> "Behold, the mellow light that floods the Eastern sky."

Stick it.

>
>
> Tony



>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Jake Jaqua" <barkus23@aol.com>
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:54:28 -0400
> Subject: What is truth?
>
>      Dan C. raises some interesting questions which I'm too
> burned out today to Try at least to reply to correctly, but:
>      The Buddhi principle is supposed to have the capacity
> of "direct perception of Truth" in Theosophical teachings.

Yeah, it has as much chance of giving you the direct perception of truth as a camel
has of flying to the moon.
It is a state of foolishness. Stay in it and Nescience will stomp you.

>         Also, I believe Blavatsky says we "Become, " we
> don't just learn.  A guy I used to study under said that you
> do not learn the truth, but you "Become the Truth," which
> I think he might have gotten from Blavatsky as she says
> the same thing more or less.
>        Also, the Kama-manas mind (logical mind, not "higher
> manas") is not a completely reliable truth-seeking
> instrument, as it can be used as a tool to cleverly
> rationalized almost anything or any position, and it can not
> Prove anything in the Absolute sense.  But it is an
> excellent tool within large boundaries, and a tool which
> very few are efficient at.  Ultimately, I doubt one can prove
> anything to anybody else (but you can make them cry
> "Uncle")  and it must boil down to some combination of
> personal mind and experience.

You got that right Jake.

Allan.