Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00090)

Dear Mauri:

You appear to be very diffuse. -- or so it seems to me, as I try
to understand what you are driving at. It appears you are
attempting to switch terminology, and meaning -- into what ?
What are YOUR fundamental concepts?

In the meantime, I say: Why not simplify" So I will try to
recap what we have covered for some time.


1.	UNIVERSAL ORDER AND HARMONY

Either the world, Universe, Humanity, all life forms in it are
under the same general rules of they are not? One cannot believe
there is such chaos and luck or chance in operation so as to make
of the whole support system that is obviously working a NOTHING,
an illusion, or a matter of impossible use.

Theosophy uses the word KARMA to generally indicate this. And
says that if it is universal, impartial, and ever-active, there
is no way one can wiggle out of its influence and grasp.


2.	UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS

Either one is able to see the intelligence that regulates the
atoms, molecules, cells, and more complex structure, then form
there to those rules and laws that include mathematics,
chemistry, physics, astronautics, engineering, etc... or we are
unable to perceive the cooperative and interactive aspect of all
components of Nature. Some form of regulation that is reactive
and intelligent resides in all forms as well as all concepts or
ideas.

Broadly speaking to simplify one might say that "GOOD" is
obedience to and assistance of the LAWS OF NATURE (KARMA) -- and
"BAD" is that which is a disturbance to the even flow of living
events, and which hurts or harms other life-forms which have
their due place in the WHOLE.

In the case of disturbance (EVIL, BADNESS, SELFISHNESS, HARM TO
OTHERS) the universal impersonal, fair, true and benevolent LAW
OF KARMA steps in to attempt to restore the balance and harmony.
It does this by EDUCATING the disturbing element. [ Every being
is an immortal --a MONAD -- so even Nature and Karma cannot
destroy such a lawless being. What then is done? It is placed
by its own choices and actions into situations which make it
review and revise its own actions, choices and revalidate them.
There is no escaping this process. The harm it did to others
rebounds on it, so that it is made to feel that which it imposed
on others in the past. ]


3. UNIVERSAL GOAL AND PURPOSE

The core intelligence is also the core LIFE of every least atomic
or sub-atomic BEING. It is immortal as it starts when evolution
re-starts. It is called an ETERNAL PILGRIM. The "Living Atom"
of today is thus a potential "MAN-Mind." The present "Man-Mind"
was potentially such when he passed through the evolutionary
stages (as a MONAD) of etheric, atomic, mineral, vegetable,
animal planes of consciousness and stages of physical
organization. Every one of us has been part of a WHOLE and
ultimately all such "parts" are the constitution of the vast
UNIVERSE in its entirety. Yet, none of the components is ever
made a slave, nor is it ever entirely destroyed or annihilated.

To sum this up (as I look at it)

We thus perceive immortality in all EXISTENCE. LAW and fairness
in the processes of evolution. Gives all an equal chance by
playing on an "even field." And finally there is an IDEAL GOAL"
to which all beings (without any exceptions) may aspire to, and
lead themselves by voluntary and free choices to attain -- even
if it may take a very long time to do. The actual path may be
described as STUDY of the regulations and procedures of NATURE.
Decision to use and abide by them as PRACTICE. Finally, having
attained to a complete knowledge of all this, the remainder of
one's existence is spent in an intimate and careful assistance of
Nature, in the education and sympathetic guidance that
cooperation demands be extended by the WISE to those who are
still "ignorant." All of us are somewhere in the middle of this
dynamic harmony. We can contribute balance or disturbance
depending on our selection of a path to use for ourselves. Our
free-will and power to choose is always the deciding factor in
our lives, now, as it was in the past, and, as it will always be
in the future.

Your observations (as also mine, and all those of other mind-Men)
can be adjusted to these fundamental ideas and facts, which
anyone of us can demonstrate (but only to themselves) by careful
thinking.

The power to think makes us creators, builders, artists,
scientists, and "lovers of mankind." We give shape to the urges,
yearnings, desires, passions that surge throughout nature, by
providing the guidance on an active and free MIND -- which
applies its wisdom (or foolishness) at the point that matters.

Thus we help or we delay the advance of the WHOLE UNIVERSE.

We are always at the CENTER of "our Universe," and we need to
recognize that it overlaps and intertwines with that of
innumerable others -- it is, in effect, "our Universe," and we
rule by choices that are shared. The value of consultation and
conferencing is thus seen to always tend towards an optimum in
assistance, and a mutual sharing of talent. In the matter of
selfishness under this concept, we see that it only serves as an
obstruction to mutual progress, and very much so to our own, as
we decide to remain IGNORANT (because of prejudice or fear).

The study of other religions and philosophies makes us compatible
with fresh expressions of the same fundamental teachings and
truth as expressed by others who use a different cultural base.
The ideas are the same, the illustration, names and language
differ -- the CORE is ONE, the forms and coverings differ.

In an infinite Universe the areas of learning may differ widely,
so there are always areas of "ignorance." However the laws of
analogy and correspondence prevail. When there is a need, the
wise man will always find the assistance needed to acquire the
needed information -- the general rules of mutual assistance,
generosity, charity, benevolence, -- all the virtues -- will
always retain their PRESENCE and REALITY no matter where one may
go (in thought) in the Universe.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:51 AM
To: basic@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-basic] self/selfish/selfless


subject: self/selfish/selfless

Responding to:

[bn-basic] RE: Some questions for the New Year......
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:21:47 -0800
From:
dalval14@earthlink.net

Who wrote, in part:

When perceived as a fact or a TRUTH, then the living of our
lives in terms of the "Heart Doctrine" acquires the dimension of
benevolence, love and charity. The distinction between
VIRTUES and VICES becomes clear. In a letter to Mr.
Sinnett, one of the Adepts writes (in part): "...the man or
woman who is placed by Karma in the midst of small plain
duties and sacrifices and loving kindnesses, will through these
faithfully fulfilled rise to the larger measure of Duty,
Sacrifice
and Charity to all Humanity--what better path towards the
enlightenment you are striving after than the daily conquest of
Self, the perseverance in spite of want of visible...progress,
the
bearing of ill-fortune with that serene fortitude which turns it
to
spiritual advantage--since good and evil are not to be
measured by events on the lower or physical plane..."
(ML 372)

=================end of quote

The frequent emphasis in Theosophy on considerations of
"self", "Self", "selfish", etc., while those would seem perfectly
Theosophically commendable, just as they are, there would
seem to be less frequent theosophical-type comments that
might begin to address the matter of various current
PERCEIVED "self"-related realities in terms expressive of
hopeful and PROGRESSIVE/CONSTRUCTIVE
(theosophic!) notions of variations of "selfishness" in the sense
that:

Since, by all appearances, (as I see it), Theosophy would
seem to play a sort of (intermediary?) role as
advisor/instigator/inspirer (where Karmically appropriate,
apparently), by the same token (surely?) there might be some
sort of Theosophic/Karmic benefit derived from addressing the
issue of particular CONTEXTS AND APPLICABILITIES of
considerations of the various derivatives and relationships of
"self." (That is, since---presumably?---the various derivatives
and relationships are beyond the capability of most to fathom,
most might be inclined to at least address "considerations" of
those?)

In other words, for example, where Theosophy asserts the
importance of studies of origins of various "religions," and
while, (quite correctly, apparently), there are Theosophic
distinctions as to which "religious paths" or permutations have
strayed from "Truths," where in Theosophy, (I wonder), might
one find Theosophically appropriate, (Theosophically
magnanimous?), overview-accounts that might
POSITIVELY/CONSTRUCTIVELY interpret of the efforts
of those who might be seen as "less-evolved" and therefore
"less" perceptive and "less" this and "less" that?

For example, I suspect that, while I might be the first to admit
of certain Churches' and certain individuals' COMPARITIVE
"shortcomings," at the same time, there would seem to be a
background-measure of Theosophic recognition of
POSSIBLE allowances for those age-old/familiar
shortcomings of the perceived "less-evolved," as expressed,
for example, by the many, familiar "Theosophically" consistent
assertions about "selflessness."

So where Theosophic and various permutative considerations
of "selfishness" are addressed, might it be equally
Theosophically viable (and even commendable?) to give
somewhat equal consideration to relevant COMPARATIVE
analogies, taking into account those various "less"-evolved
perspectives?

That is, IF, as Theosophy would seem to assert, (I think),
we're ALL (including the "Adepts"), only COMPARTIVELY
this and that . . . then, I would think, looking at things from a
more-universal (and "Theosophic") perspective, for all
practical purposes we would seem to be all in the same Boat,
in the last analysis?

So, while someone might have an inclination for "selfishness" in
various forms . . . surely (?) that's obviously just the result
of a
CURRENT perspective, en route to, possibly,
"more-advanced" perpectives, basically
Monadically/Universally speaking? If so, it would seem that
"even" "selfish" perpectives/motives can/might contain FORMS
of insight, leading toward . . . other forms of insight? Yes?
No?

Or does some Theosophic Stance have it that everything is
either black or white, (in some sense?), and nothing in
between? I wonder.

What might be the variations on a theme of Theosophy?
Are those variations as numerous as the Theosophists?

My guess is that, partly because of the existence of tentative or
(in some cases?) overt ambivalence and questioning of
Theosophic matters, (some aspects of which I have expressed
in this post), that HPB and the Masters saw the need for
certain introductory/more-specific forms of Theosophic
commentary.

Thanks, HPB and Masters.

Mauri

ps to some, i realize, the above may seem, among other
things, rather platitudinous . . . sorry about that . . . what
can i
say . . . i'm working on things . . . things are under
construction
. . .










---
Current topic is at
http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm
You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as:
[dalval14@earthlink.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-basic-6660818H@lists.lyris.net