Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00328)

Dear Peter,

> >I think we have to take the I / me reasonably seriously.  This
> is after all
> >the vehicle of the higher consciousness during incarnation.

What is posing the statement: "we have to take the I / me reasonably
seriously"?  Is it the I / me itself?

The Quarternary is the vehicle of incarnation.  It has to become "cypher".
The "me" clouds/muddies the vehicle.  Big problem.

>>  And it is
> >'through' the personal vehicle in each incarnation that most of us either
> >help or hinder the forward movement of humanity.  As we know from the
> >theosophical teachings  the conscious link with our higher nature is one
> >that has to be forged during incarnation.  Humanity as a whole
> seems to be
> >incredibly identified with the personality doesn't it.  This
> identification
> >won't go away, in my view, just by saying the personality isn't
> important.

How important is the "personality" compared to Humanity as a Whole?

Extract from "The Voice of the Silence":

"The Self of matter and the SELF of Spirit can never meet.  One of the twain
must disappear; there is no place for both.

Ere thy Soul's mind can understand, the bud of personality must be crushed
out, the worm of sense destroyed past resurrection."

> >But more importantly the feeling of "I" or "I am I" is derived
> from Manas.
> >AS HPB writes in the Key to Theosophy page 33-34..
> >
> >"We distinguish between the simple fact of self-consciousness, the simple
> >feeling that "I am I," and the complex thought that "I am Mr. Smith" or
> >"Mrs. Brown." Believing as we do in a series of births for the
> same Ego, or
> >re-incarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of the
> whole idea.
> >You see "Mr. Smith" really means a long series of daily
> experiences strung
> >together by the thread of memory, and forming what Mr. Smith calls
> >"himself." But none of these "experiences" are really the "I" or the Ego,
> >nor do they give "Mr. Smith" the feeling that he is himself, for
> he forgets
> >the greater part of his daily experiences, and they produce the
> feeling of
> >Egoity in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore,
> distinguish
> >between this bundle of "experiences," which we call the false (because so
> >finite and evanescent) personality, and that element in man to which the
> >feeling of "I am I" is due. It is this "I am I" which we call the true
> >individuality; and we say that this "Ego" or individuality plays, like an
> >actor, many parts on the stage of life."

Yes, that is true.  The "bundle of 'experiences'" is being termed the "me".

> >  I think if we just view people as
> >personalities, as "a bundle of transient memories" then we also
> lose sight
> >of that "self consciousness" in the other person which is the true actor
> >within the personality.

Precisely. We loose sight of (the) Individuality.

>  The danger here is that our actions
> towards people
> >may then become indifferent rather than theosophical.

Is it un-theosophical to see beyond the difference?; the difference we call
'you' and 'me'?  To see beyond the great dire heresy of separateness?

> >I'm trying to get a sense of what this might mean for you and me
> in practice
> >Paul,

It may mean "you" and "me" will have to get out of the driving seat.

> I mean as a practicing theosophist?

What is a practicing theosophist?

>  How do you use this
> to help you
> >to relate to the people around you, to those you come into
> contact with on a
> >daily basis?

Use what, Peter?  If Oneness IS, what is there to relate *to*?

"The people around you" might imply being the centre of importance. Does
that not create a problem? Does that not create *the* problem?

> >To dismiss people as illusory parts seems un-theosophical for
> me.

Where did such a thought arise?

All best wishes,
Paul.