Theos-Talk Archives (October 1998 Message tt00020)

> Dallas wrote:

> Understood - when embodied and in the waking state the personal

> consciousness is selfish and isolated  -- the "aggregates" or

> "samskaras /skandhas" as I understand it are those "Monads" upon
> which we have imposed either our thought, feeling or will, and
> therefore become for a longer or shorter time (under Karma)
> "attached" to us as a center.

That's the teaching. These "Monads" are experiencing life as the
elemental essences of the lower planes and so can become the component
parts of our vehicles. It's all still maya though.

> As I understand it the Buddhistic and also the Theosophical
> approach to this situation is to try to harmonize all karmic
> links so as to become an impersonal force for good alone - in
> other words "to become karma-less."

To "harmonize karma" I would agree with, but to become a "force for good
alone" will still leave you in a dualistic state. Impersonality is more
like becoming the sun or the rain. Expressing ITSELF without distinction
between good or evil. Just BEING.

> I would also observe that "Consciousness" per se is in itself
> separate from any state that "we" may be in, and consequently is
> a unitary "thread of being" on which or in which, all experience
> is recorded and seen.

Yes and THOU ART THAT.

<snip>

> I understand what you say and mean - and I would agree that in
> some cases it can become another state of selfishness with the
> added confusion of thinking that one is important, and with
> enthusiasm one starts off doing things without truly apprehending
> the ultimate consequences - perhaps one might characterize this
> with the "dangers of a little knowledge."
>
> On the other hand it is better to try to do some good, however
> limited one's perspective than to become inert.

Agreed.

<snip>

> Their only value is to show that those concepts were known and
> current in antiquity - an antiquity of study of which Theosophy,
> Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism , etc., etc. are all
> parts.
>
> Since Theosophy was "recorded" for many peoples with various
> historical antecedents, this may mean more to them than to us
> with our limited Euro-American education.  We may have to meet
> and discuss matters with others who have their own antique
> backgrounds - this can give us the facility of dealing with them
> with greater ease if we know those ideas and words.

I wasn't looking for a defense of the merits of scholarship. You'll get
no argument from me in that regard. I was just asking you what all this
means to your own personal experience. Sometimes I'm not sure if you're
just quoting passages for their research value or if you've had direct
experiences of these things.

Regards,
Mark