Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00419)

[DALLAS ] 
The "personality" to me, includes not only the reasoning faculty, but also it engages the emotional faculty (desires, passions, wants and needs) as a separate faculty.  

I agree up to a point.  

 
I use HPB's definitions of the 7=fold man, and have tested it and found it valuable and workable.  It also (to me) solves many of the puzzles of modern psychology.  

I would love to hear how you "tested" it. The problem with most psychology
is not puzzles but simply that, like scientists, they won't acknowledge what
they can't detect with their physical senses.

 
If only they (those engaged in psychological science and investigation) studied and employed it (Theosophical definitions), they would save a lot of time.  

Transpersonal psychology is slowly doing this, thanks mostly to Ken Wilber.

 
But the first stumbling block is the matter of individual IMMORALITY.  If that is not grasped.  To me it is very logical but I also recognize that it is not part of the educational or religious instruction here in the West (as opposed to the East, where in most countries, among the common people, the concept of Soul-immorality is common).

Here is where you and I part ways. Like Buddhism, I do not believe in individual
immortality. In fact, Dallas, the idea of personal immortality is exactly what the
Black Magician tries to accomplish. Even "Individuality" as defined by HPB is
transcend, changing, and ephemeral. You will find soul-immortality in Hinduism,
but not in Buddhism.


[DALLAS ] 
Excuse me, but it is easy to take that view point, but it is causing a paradox.  In the sense that you the illusion are able to see other illusions -- and there would be (if true) no certainty of any kind.  But there is one certainty tha you seem to advance -- THERE IS NOTHING BUT UNCERTAINTY.  If there is contrast then the inquirer has to have a basis.  What is your basis ?  This is what I somehow do not get at.

You apparently keep misunderstanding me. I never said THERE IS NOTHING BUT 
UNCERTAINTY, nor do I believe such a thing. What I have been saying is that certainty 
and uncertainty are two sides of the same coin and you can't have one without the other. 


 
>>Improvement and distortion are purely subjective terms.
 [DALLAS ] 
 AGREED, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM UNUSABLE OR UNREAL, DOES IT ?  iN A WAY EVERYTHING WE PERCEIVE WITH ANY OF OUR SENSES OR THE MIND IS "subjective."  I say this as we take in those various impressions and then transform them into images, vibrations, etc. which our inner "brain-mind" makes a "picture" of and then we gain a vision of what is being prsented and evolve a response.
 
When you make a statement that something is a distortion you are making
a subjective judgement.  I agree that you are free to make such judgement
calls for yourself, HPB tells us to do this. But she also points out that it is
wrong to make such judgement calls for others, and that is what you seem
to be doing all the time (Or am I wrong?).

In short, it is ok to think that you yourself are improving, but it is quite wrong
to think that your neighbor is not.

 
[DALLAS ] 
Not really, as this is recognized by me as a fact, and also I believe I am right in assuming that something in "me" is aware of the change of scene, plane, etc... and either acts, or eceives impressions from that event -- and then those are brought into focus when we "return" to this plane.  I would very much hesitate to advance any experience tha I had as anything but proof to myself of the events I had experienced.
 
The above is very unclear. If you are trying to say that inside of us is a Seer in
the Patanjali sense, then I would agree. However, you really have to take this
one step farther and do a Rahmana Maharshi exercise (who am I?) on this
Seer to see what it is. So far, I have been unable to define it, and so I just
call it pure consciousness for lack of anything better. 


[DALLAS ]  
Then what HPB advances in TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE (PP 66 - 76 IN my edition) appears to contradict this assumption.  Also in SD II 167 is an explanation of the situation.

No, it is not HPB but your own interpretation of her that conflicts.


[DALLAS ] 
AS I undrsand it, Karma acts everywhere, on all planes and all the time for all being including you, me and everyone else.  To say tha Karma acts only in future lives.  That is mechanistic and not true.  If you allow boiling water to fall on your hand today the effect is immediate.  

We are talking in cross-purposes here. I have no problem with karma being in time
(but synchronicities are acausal and outside of time). I am heartened to hear that
you dislike mechanistic or deterministic views of the world although most of your
messages have suggested the opposite to me.
 

Jerry S.