Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00061)

Here are some thoughts and notes below. Thanks.

D

D. T. B.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:07 PM
To: sd@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-sd] Re: SPACE -- SD Vol. p. 9 and 11


Subject:
[bn-sd] Re: SPACE -- SD Vol. p. 9 and 11

Dear Dallas,

As an adjunct to considerations about reincarnation (or
spatial reincarnation as we "know" it) in a theosophical
sense, I would think that one might do well to think about
the nature of the "understandable MATERIAL world's"
consistent (obvious?) close ALLIANCE with "life as we
'KNOW' it here on earth."

DTB Rather our earth physical conditions are constructed by
the Universal CONSCIOUSNESS (or MIND) in a regular systematic
method of education for all the MONADS who live and work in that
condition. The apparent environment is a result of necessity.
The MONADS are the eternal beings -- points of CONSCIOUS LIFE.
Their "field" of influence includes all other Monads. None are
isolated nor are they capable of totally independent existence,
or the ability to impose themselves on the rest. Cooperation
under LAW is the general rule of all living.
The physical location provides material (a physical brain) in
which the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS can work and communicate. The effort
is to transform the physically restricted sensorium and
consequent thinking into a far more universal perception
including the planes and spheres of subtler perception such as
feeling, passion, vitality (élan), and some glimpse of
metaphysical latitudes.
The effort to cause the physical to widen to the infinite is
educative and leads the Monads who are undergoing the "physical
phase" of their cycle of growth to alter and change their
capacities.

In other words, our mental/physical environment
reflects (i.e., obviously HAS to reflect?), our collective
limits of "possible understanding" in the manner of an
Extension of "our basic notions" about the nature of
Nature or Existence, followed to various "logical" (real or
imagined) Extensions right out to "universal"
levels/extents. So that, what we see, hear, feel, think is a
manifestation of our mutual world-view karma-related
SENSE of "reality," within the parameters of that
limited-logic encounter-environment (or learning
environment) that most of us have some familiarity with.
Which is to say (in another way) that our
world-environment is really essentially our worldly
mutual concession/agreement
within which (within the parameter-rules of which) we
think/function since, for the time being, we don't know
anything better/more, while we attempt
to transcend, (each in our own way), to some "higher" or
"closer" level of understanding/perception toward what
Dallas referred to as "a THIRD something" or
"Witness/Observer":

Dallas: "Logically there is a THIRD something that is
unaffected by these contrasts, and because it is not a part
of the variables they provide, is enabled to conceive of
the various levels of relationship which the polar
opposites provide."

and Dallas: "Does this THIRD "real," "unchangeable,"
"immutable," timeless," "Witness/Observer," etc... exist,
or is it necessary?"

DTB To me it seem that both apply. The MONAD THAT WE ARE HAS
CAPACITIES THAT POTENTIALLY ARE UNLIMITED. In the SD HPB speaks
in Vol. 2 in several places of the wise DHYANIS (also Monads who
have been through this educative process we call manifestation,
and having "graduated" They considered it a duty to commingle
with the Monads that have less in the way of progress -- so as to
help them in their advance.
In TRANSACTIONS (pp. 65 - 78) HPB hints of the HIGHER SELF as
being such a resident. Its function is not to DIRECT, but to
COUNSEL, when appealed to. [This probably in analogetic to the
TWO ONES of SD I 130 top.] The pupil (Monad) must by its own
efforts grow into a cognizance of the resident TUTOR, and from
there, it has to adopt the discipline of the "HIGHER LIFE" -- and
in its turn assume responsibility for the manner in which it
treats the Monads that are its responsibility. (These are the
Skandhas which are attracted to it under Karma.)

Good question! I see theosophical literature/discussion as
a kind of cattle prod without which many of us poor
schnooks would have an even harder time of
contemplating/meditating toward that THIRD.

DTB Not a good analogy. We do not need and external
"cattle-prod." But we need to awaken in this incarnation in our
Lower Mind to the actual state of affairs universally and the
opportunity we have confronting us which enables us to grow into
something better than we are so far: a HUMAN BEING who realizing
it is an immortal, acts and lives as such in the present world --
but does not advertise the fact to others, who would not
understand.


Dallas: "What is the function of Mankind or of each
person? What is the nature of intelligence, awareness,
consciousness ? is there any change, growth, purpose to
be inferred here?"

and Dallas: "But while one might go on providing
questions to consider and correlate, the main study would
involve eventually the whole of Nature and focus around
a single one QUESTION: What is the purpose of a
human life?"

So many good questions! I wonder what kind of answer
to all those age old questions would have the most
meaningful impact on those desiring to find
personally-relevant/applicable ANSWERS.

But then, I suspect, our over-all encounter/learning
karma-experience would seem to be the
most-relevant/important consideration/matter to that
THIRD---not that I have any idea whether or how that
THIRD "considers" or "rules" or . . . ? Or do I? How
do we really know whether we're just somehow
essentially pretending (for the sake of our
karma-encounter process?) that we don't know the
answers to some of those "age old questions?" For all I
know, our karma/encounter/learning life-experience
process might be a purposeful overlay (is it an overlay,
according to theosophical tenets?) that's an attribute of
that THIRD, by which that THIRD might . . . access?
learn? acquire? experience/live?
DTB Think over what I wrote above an see if some of your
queries are answered. Each one has to do most of the work by and
for themselves, so that, in turn, they may pass it on to others.
Each has to learn how to "cook" the assembled food and prepare a
suitable meal from it. This is mental food, and is not
emotional, or desire/passion satiation. What is the LAW? What
are duty bound to do?


Dallas: "But, before Manifestation what was there, if
anything? NON-SPACE ? Shall we call (for our
convenience manifested Space POSITIVE and
non-manifested Space NEGATIVE ? Perhaps we could
say that there is SPACE in which there are set
definitions, and those are dependent on Karma -- of an
immeasurable past."

I wonder whether more-comprehensive answers to those
questions could be translated into some kind of English or
Sanskrit. That is, at what point might languages as we
know them fail to convey key theosophical concepts?
But that last sentence (by Dallas) seems to have some
relevance at least within the kind of karma-related/limited
logic that conforms to our generally accepted
world-view. So would "space" be a
necessary/appropriate component in an environment or
medium in which there is severe/obvious/consistent
limitedness (as a necessary prerequisite for
karma-processing)? If so, that would suggest that
"space" can be somehow "shortened" in direct proportion
with an appropriate "increase of knowledge" of the
THIRD or Witness/Observer? Or, ought one to think
that that "normally-perceived space" isn't really altered,
or "seen" as what it is at least more-allied with until one
becomes "one with the THIRD" in some way? After
which kind of "oneness" might "space" be somehow then
"seen" as an expression of limitation, essentially?

DTB Space is first of all our immediate environment, and the
power we develop to understand its opportunities and its
limitations. To o this we have to realize that we are in fact
far "higher" than any environment or limitations we find
ourselves in. So "space" includes ourselves as a part of the
whole, the WHOLE as not only ITSELF (and undefinable) but as
consisting of Units which are in essence our Brothers, and which
have the same opportunities and capacities we have. How much
more carefully would we live if we were convinced of this? What
are our duties to other Monads? Who do we develop the control of
our CHOOSING power and FREE WILL? What is morality, virtue,
ethics? Are they in place? Are they reasonable? Can they be
found and studied ? How do they interplay with the Monads,
whether physical astral, pranic, kamic or manasic -- it being
understood that these designations do not create separations
between adjacent Monads, but merely indicate that for the time
being they and their partners are undergoing an education in
those particular spheres?
There are so many questions we might ask ourselves, but those do
not lead us "away" from our main theme but eventually are found
to unify, as all are inter-related.
For the MONAD to become fully aware of its Parent TUTOR and of
its own POTENTIALS which are the same as that Tutor's (HIGHER
SELF) it has to go consciously through the whole gamut of
experience. Hence Reincarnation under Karma exposes it to the
metaphysics of UNIVERSAL UNITY and CAUSATION, and the concept of
the intangibles that we would name ABSOLUTENESS. Then the
prevalence of a fair, just and immutable LAW (KARMA) and a set of
reactive laws that enforce the responsibilities of brotherhood on
each Monad and every situation. This is very long
apprenticeship, but we have the energy to outlast any and all
experiences until they yield their meaning to us.

Mauri

P.S. -- Does anybody happen to know what "schnook"
means, really? Something like a backward or
disadvantaged person?

DTB Is it Yiddish, or possibly bas-Dutch of the Netherlands
or Hessian immigrants. Webster's International Dicty. says the
origin is unknown and gives it a derogatory meaning as a "dolt,"
or an "idiot" -- but I have heard it used as a friendly
designation also, among friends and family. "You poor fish"
might be a suitable equivalent in slang. Why not go to a
"Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, " or a
"Dictionary of Word Origins" for meaning? Did not Mencken make
one on this?


==============

CUT