Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00424)

Nov 24th 1998

Dear Jerry:

IMMORTALITY -- of course this cannot be proved objectively, only by thinking
hard about it.  It is neither Hindu nor Buddhist.

Theosophy embraces not only these two but also all the rst of the great
world religions and philosophies -- makes them impersonal and shows that
they all originate from one source.

UNCERTAINTY -- UNCERTAINTY  I agree that they are a pair.   On the other
hand we cannot read our own future, but we seem to muddle through those
daily problems pretty well.

JUDGMENTS    -- Those concerning myself are agreeably subjective.  But I
would not try to attempt or make the judging of another a practice.  The
surface of all living is limited.  Only each person knows in his/her
heart-of-heart what their motives are.

 THE INNER SELF --    each has to do this for themselves.  If we consider
that all Theosphy offers are the propositions we might use if we want to,
and, in addition lends the weight of testimony in regard to their
application then we may find value in theosophy.  But we are all free to go
and take up either our own way of thinking or to study and apply any other
system.

The only reason that I read and contribute to these talks is that I have
found something in Theosophy that  is useful for me.  I share it in the hope
tha others like you will respond and so we will all learn more together.  Of
course my interpretation of what HPB says is my own, but I try also to
impesonalize it and universalize it so that it is not too heavily charged
with my opinions.

KARMA  --  My view is that every physical action (thought, feeling, etc.)
has its moral (ethical) and everlasting effect. And that these effects
return to those who generate them in time.  I would say that by wronging
anyone I would wrong myself as well as the rest of mankind -- in the long
run.
[DALLAS ]

[DALLAS ]








              Dallas TenBroeck
              dalval@nwc,net

    From: Jerry Schueler
    Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 6:26 AM
 Subject: Response to Dallas

    [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.