Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00135)

Monday, March 26, 2001

Dear M-----,

If and when you drive a car, when does one decide to turn left or
right so as to either stay on the same course or to turn off it?
In passing a driver's license test, does one not first have to
study the Rules and Codes? Are there not wiser examiners who
decide and test us for the common application of safety? == The
safety of all, including the driver for himself ?

Universally the same prerequisites exist for all studies. Those
are not excluded in Theosophy.

In all our many exchanges over the past several months (I mean
not only "Theosophical") but in terms of IDEAS and LOGIC, what
rules or facts would you start with in answering your question,
if it was asked of you by another ? Can you condense and frame
those ?

If anyone wishes, then there is a basis for that. What is it ?
Where would an answer take us?

If a BASIS is found, then what RULES or LAWS apply with equity
and fairness to both correspondents?

Example: suppose you knew French only and I had some knowledge
of both French and English, and an answer was found for you in
English. I could not send it to you without translation, could
I? Then the rules of correct transfer apply, not only as to
words but specially as to ideas ?

If you add as you say "a desire to please" then do you imply that
the question or the transfer through words would be faulty and
untrue, if that "DESIRE to please" was allowed to intervene?

After all, one assumes that if another writes or says anything,
the reason is to be CLEAR? If anyone interferes with either the
basis or the rules of transfer, the result is bound to be
distorted to that extent. ( and time and energy are wasted) I
would agree that it is difficult to take all distortion out of a
message. It "honesty is the best policy, then a straight "no
holds barred" answer is the one that makes things clear for both
parties?

I realize that our education aims us at being strivers for
wealth -- usually "at ay cost." But when an example of this
arises in fiction or real life, we find that the application of
common law in the courts, for instance, seeks to redress excesses
and punish concealed and lying faults. The concept of a
universal, fair and even morality in life (whether visible or
invisible) is agreed to as an applicable ideal.

Why should that be so ? What impels it? And why is it so
difficult to make its ideals, reasons, laws and applications as
processes, clear to the young? Why does anyone do EVIL? Why
spend any time on it at all ? If that can be answered, each for
and to themselves, a lot of discord, hurt and waste of time would
be avoided.

On the other hand let us look at your suggestion of "pleasing" as
an attempt to mollify an "unpleasant truth." Make it more
"palatable" to another. This reminds me of an old set off rules
from the LAWS OF MANU:

"Let him say: what is true; what is useful; what is pleasant;
let him not say any disagreeable truth, nor say any agreeable
falsehood."

If you are seeking for fact and truth, then all is relevant to
that search if honest and sincere. How else does anyone learn?
If there is any deception or concealment, then is there not chaos
and disruption, pain and suffering eventually?

In School, did you not assume that the texts and the teacher's
instructions were absolutely true? In examinations, were the
students not expected to REPEAT what they had been taught?
[Reviewing the same instructions, impacted in our memory, after a
time, we find that in that interval there may have been changes
(not in facts, but in their interpretation). For example: And
to my annoyance, I have fund that the truths of School were
modified in college, then as time passed in the life of days
since then, I have found that whole concepts had to be 'dumped'
and fresh ones substituted. In other words the hypotheses and
theories of an earlier instruction were forced to make way for
additional data that became available, from the same source
(Nature) but was now interpreted differently. Why were we not
TOLD when first instructed that these "truths" were only the
theories of men ? Makes me very annoyed. I resent that. Why
was I LIED to ? Why was my trust abused ? At least (so far) in
theosophy I have not felt I was treated as "a child" and given
only partial TRUTHS. That I respect. But I am still impelled at
every step to probe and search.

I have found the physics and mathematics learned in college, have
altered when Relativity was introduced, then Indeterminacy, and
"Quantum Physics." The same old basis, but a fresh view of it
with more data added to the original basis -- data that modified
the PHILOSOPHY of those sciences. Nature did not change, but our
way of understanding it altered. But, why was I not told that
the THEORIES were only tentative, and research to prove their
accuracy was still proceeding?]

Looking at the encounter (in X-Files you speak of) with the
"Genia" and the 3 wishes, one is left with the following: [ My
way of thinking ]

1.	The wishes were oriented towards PERSONAL DESIRES, and

2.	two of them then neutralized each-other The status quo ante
was needed and restored.

3.	This implies that NATURE was already taking care of those
problems and the proposed personal interference was unnecessary,
confusing and very short timed in terms of the personal goals of
that individual's mental and psychic acuity. But it has the
advantage of pointing to the audience the limited value of
ignorance and selfish desires. Does anyone learn, or is it all
entertainment ? And is entertainment designed to be educative or
a waste of time ?

4.	The individual was unready, or precipitous, and certainly not
widely enough aware of the workings of the general and specific
Laws of Nature. He was ignorant and did not take that
immediately into account. From that we all can secure CAUTION.
Is it possible that this was a kind of magnifying glass placed
over our habitual choices and designed to show us the effect in
the invisible/visible world of some of the choices we make ?

5.	The uncertainty this left with the audience is one what we
would all feel if suddenly the guidance of a World or even a
province were suddenly 'dumped' on us. We are not even vaguely
necessary in deciding how to manage the feeding or health of our
own bodies. Usually our interference in food and health related
situations produces the seeds of future disasters. Yet, we
presume to be able to guide and govern our "Lower Natures?"

Are we truly ready? Can we assume the helm? Or is it a proof to
us that the evolution of the PHYSICAL BODY has been pretty well
handled by the innate powers of Nature that have provided us with
this marvelous instrument. Are we not really just visitors or
renters in this body of ours? Do we truly own and nurture it, or
do we act as Tyrants and compel it into unnecessary, undignified
and foolish actions simply because we happen to have a superior
power of control? And when ill or impaired, do we not haste to
the nearest "doctor" and implore hi to set order, where we have
destroyed it either wholly or partially? Why should we resent or
fear a reaction which is bond to come about ? Are we willing to
accept the Causal part we constantly but unconsciously and
carelessly play in this drama of life in a physical body loaned
to us ? I know this is an unusual proposition, but is there not
some truth in it?

6.	The reaction in terms of humor and amusement is again based on
the Kamic principle of diversion, amusement, pleasure, and
irresponsibility. These are uncontrolled and ungoverned, and few
ever consider the consequences of "excess."

7.	In the world we are now living responsibly (more or less) in
the balance of work and leisure have been set at polar opposites
of each other. Is that really so, or is it a false set of
values, and if it is false, how did it get set there? Do you
really think the very rich (who have money to burn and can spend
their lives as they wish), are invariably HAPPY ? I know this
has been set up as a "goal" for us all -- as though the trials
and sorrows of life were only to be compensated for by unlimited
pleasure ( a Nirvana of some kind, totally unearned).

Undeserved is a concept we like. How much of our life is spent on
devising ways of 'escaping'; the results of selfish and careless
behavior ? No wonder there are religions and sects, Mystical
societies and "Yogis," who acquire adherents.

All those who hope (on and after some payment) to acquire
information about as mysterious and totally unknown (hitherto)
"escape hatch?" Few of them stop to think that if the teaching
were true, then whose who set up shop would be long gone, and in
fact, for them, the work of attracting the unwary would be quite
unnecessary. It takes a lot of fly-paper to catch all the flies.
And flies are reputed to be wiser than some other insects. I
would add that this is one reason THEOSOPHY is so cordially
hated: it asks for no money, and it causes people to investigate
their own potentials. It points to wisdom as being the common
sense of any and all inquirers. It also gives a simple method of
proving that. It never seeks for adherents or does any
proselyting. It merely presents things as they are.

Then of course there are those who loose themselves in "work."
And seem to live for nothing by that and their personal
achievements. A different kind of imbalance.

So, as the Buddha might say: Where is the MIDDLE PATH ?

As far as I can determine THEOSOPHY enables us to look at all
those problems and repeating the last question, ask: "What shall
I do ?" An answer that might be returned by a Buddha, which
seems on analysis to be couched in terms of invoking self-help:
It says: "Study and get Wise. Study Nature, and learn her
"secrets." See if you can wisely select those you need from
among those you are able to discover."

That's it. How do we balance desire for the personal self, with
the greater KINGLY DESIRE for the WISE INNER HIGHER SELF ? This
duality has to be resolved eventually or the vibration between
pain and pleasure never ceases. And "wishes" do not solve the
matter, but WISDOM enables us to bring this to a halt through
wise choice and wise action. At least, that is as I see it.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 3:36 AM
To: basic@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-basic] theosophic wishes?




I can't help thinking about the deeper meaning
and intended meanings of the word "wish" and its
variables of "good will." Throughout history,
I suppose, they seem to have found their way
into a number of posts and letters, (including
mine, of course). Apparently there's a
prevailing belief of some kind that a letter
or a message itself (its main text/context)is
somehow not sufficient-enough in expressing one's
concern and intent . . . or what is it that might
MORE-SPECIFICALLY compel one to decide in favor
of ending a written or a spoken
communication with that "wish" word, in
addition to one's concession to tradition,
possibly, or one's desire to please, be
considerate, etc.?

It occurred to me that one's honest evaluation
of one's wishing, in general, might help to bring
out some very relevant considerations, (even
theosophic insights, possibly?), about the
nature of Manas and about one's motives and
values as those might be seen from a Larger
perspective?

In last nights episode of X-Files, Fox Mulder
met a "genia" (a female genii). His first wish
was for "peace on earth." As a result
everything came to a stand-still and all peaple
disappeared. For his third wish, after getting
things back to "normal," he decided to take his
time so as to try to make it as fool-proof as
possible. But, true to X-Files style, the viewer
was left wondering about the particulars of
Mulder's third wish, in the end; though he
seems to have included in that wish a wish that
the genia herself had earlier expressed (as part
of her own wish for herself, in response to
Mulder's question) to be sitting at an outdoor
cafe, one fine day, sipping on a fine cup of
coffee and watching the world go by.
The implication seems to have been (among
other things, I suppose) that a genia's duties
leave few opportunities for such pleasures.

Best Wishes,
Mauri

P.S. I wonder what I mean by those "Best
Wishes", more-specifically. Seems that, to
answer that, I would need to know myself
more-specifically---all the rest seems more like
just some kind of conventional surface wisdom
. . . on the surface of it, at any rate? And
below that surface? Aspects of
Atma-Buddhi-Manas? But isn't that too
presumptuous for the Kama nature and Lower
Manas to suppose . . . so is the entertainment
of such thoughts appropriate and wise in one's
present circumstances, whatever those might
be? Why not?

---
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