Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00160)

Friday, March 30, 2001


Dear K----------

As I understand it, the view we have of evolution as condensed in
the consciousness of a human being ranges (as implied in the
MONAD) from the highest spiritual concept and vision to the most
selfish forms that matter can devise.

If we were not the Monad (in evolution) we would not be able to
understand any of the combinations that result from the
commingling and intertwining of these two polar opposites with
the Intellectual (or mind faculty) serving as a medial base for
discrimination. [ I refer to what H.P.B. says in S.D. I 181 ]

Yes, the physical "temple" can be fouled with the skunk smell.
But even that does not linger. It dissipates in time. It can be
replaced with the smell of roses. But how is that done? What
discriminates between the two and then resolves to make the
change? If anything the illustration shows that physical things
have a short and variable tenure. The Spiritual survive for
ever.

What is more important? To recognize the difference between the
two smells and learn how to alter the bad for the good? Or, learn
how to get away from the "temple" and perhaps build a new one?
In which case what happens to the older building? Is our
responsibility for it also cut? Are there no lingering
responsibilities? There are so many important karmic factors to
consider. Which are the most important?

I do not know the answers to these questions, but it seems to me
that if we live in a universe of Law, then this has been done
thousands of times and there is a solution. And also, a record
of how this is to be done is lodged somewhere in the Akasic
tablets. Apparently we have in us a Mind which is able to either
find the necessary analogies in our memory files, or create a new
solution if we are able to bring all the factors to a single
point from which we can choose the best path. It is when we
impatiently adopt some fresh method, without thinking out the
potential risks and effects, that may adopt stupid ways and
means -- and the only stupid person around is our Lower Self.

So we balance the past and its decisions, (memory) against the
creative power of a an independent Mind that is able to choose
and implement a new method, a new Path. Which of these two is
more valuable? I think they are both useful, and that points to
the Perceiver within who is independent of both past and future.
Would it be too much to consider it to be the ETERNAL SELF ?
Would it not also be a good conclusion to say that this is one of
the proofs of the Inner Self ?

Patanjali in his Yoga-Aphorisms [ Book 1, verses 20-21 ] says:

"20. The soul is the Perceiver; is assuredly vision itself pure
and simple; unmodified; and looks directly upon ideas.

21. For the sake of the Soul alone, the Universe exists."
Nature in energizing does...[as it were expressed in words]
..."let me bring about the soul's experience."

I would say that the evolutionary sweep of Nature (Universe)
governed by laws has room for the offensive and the inoffensive.
The offensive in my esteem have a shorter existence than the
inoffensive (relatively). But both are conditions in time and
space, and both serve the learning and impartial soul as
experiences.

When we add to Mind the power of Desire (likes and dislikes,
desires and aversions) we are adding a dimension over which we
can exercise control of our reactions. We added it, we can
control our reaction to what we feel there. It is so for our
personal Karma: We make it, and as a result we either like or
dislike the results. But once we have made it we cannot change
except by altering our attitude towards the inevitable results.
Depending on the intensity of our FEELING when karma brings us
such results, we decide how and when to modify those for the
future, and also our own reactions.

Apparently as "Perceivers" we are indeed "unmodified." Our
"perceptions" and our "reactions" change and are subject to our
will when we decide to change them.

I hope this may prove to be of help in explain my reasoning.

Another way of expressing it is that we are a reincarnating and
ever-evolving MONAD. The MONAD is an "Eternal Pilgrim." It is
timeless, attentive, intelligent and ever learning. Around it
accumulate by karmic attraction numberless "Monads of lesser
experience," as more recently individualized from the MONADIC
ESSENCE (S.D. I 619-24).

As the more experienced, our human-stage-Monad has developed the
Mind faculty and is now conscious of itself and its powers.

Its relation with the "Monads of lesser experience" ought to be
that of a "father" to a "son:" educative and protective. If
that is violated or changed in any way, the impression left on
the "son" is either enlightening or confusing and darkening.
Thus the responsibility of the "Father" is a great one. The
difference is: the "Father" is a "Self-conscious Monad." The
"sons" are not yet self-conscious and independent.

This seems to be a description of the actual situation in every
human being. It introduces the momentary and constant
responsibility we have for the quality of our choices. In effect
it states that the Law of Karma operates in producing the
material, physical and psychological basis for our karma (good or
bad) and shows how it is attached to the "sons" who have not yet
developed self-consciousness.

The sons, depending on the impression made upon them, leave us
and go out into the world and universe and under the law of
karmic cycles, when they return to us, they bring (each of them,
their small fragment of karma) the power of the impression we
gave them. The resulting effect is to assist us or to make
things more difficult. In any case this is the reason and
process for the operation of Karma.


Dallas


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Katinka Hesselink [mailto:katinka_hesselink@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:04 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: more enlightenment

Hi Dallas,
> From: dalval14@earthlink.net
> Thanks for reviewing this.
you're welcome.
> I add a few notes below
me too.
> DTB As I look at it, if we consider our nature in
terms of the
> 7-fold constitution of Man as Theosophy teaches, we find in the
> KEY, that H.P.B. has divided the Mind (Manas) into 3
activities:
> 1. HIGHER AND UNIVERSAL (Buddhi-Manas); 2, impartial pure
> thought (Manas untouched by "desire'); and, 3. LOWER MIND
that
> is SELFISH, and desires eminence, control and insulation from
> pain and sorrow.


Oke, this is the usual superficial statement on this.

DTB Is there anything in Theosophy that is
"superficial?" Is it to be implied that we need not consider or
apply it? If it is kindergarten stuff, then what's the obstacle
to using it ?
is there anything that is non-essential in our daily lives?

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

> To me, the Lower Mind ( KAMA-MANAS, in which our waking
> consciousness is focused now ), has its moments of selfishness
> and its moments of altruism. We might say that when INTUITION
> penetrates to the embodied mind, it is a flash from Buddhi
Manas
> and the Universal LAW that Buddhi lives in. But on examination
> it is difficult t insulate the higher aspect of the Lower Mind
> from the effect o personal and selfish desires. It has to be
> done if we are going to succeed and become "Perfect."


Hm, I don't even think HPB would have agreed with this. Reminds
me of her
image (forget where she mentions it) of having skunks in a temple
and
expecting them to become saints, instead of realizing that they
will soil
the temple.
=============================

DTB To recognize the skunks and to do something about
it, Both are important. A skunk is necessary in its proper place
and it is agreed that a "temple" is not such a place. Now how do
we either get the skink out, or how do we purify the TEMPLE ?
Cannot both be done simultaneously ?
==========================================

How can higher be separated from lower if all is interconnected?
The lower
is only different from the higher manas in that the lower manas
is manas
filled with personal thoughts and emotions. The higher manas (I
have
always thought this), is the same manas, but then clean as a
mirror and
therefore capable of more abstract thought and more reasonable
assessment
of situations and interrelations.

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

DTB Agreed -- a god illustration. But instead of a
"mirror" the MANAS might be a lens, through which the Divine
Light of ATMA can shine it the lens is pure and clean. But
H.P.B. has explained this in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY.
As I read it, the Higher Manas incarnates in the personality and
endows the Lower Manas with a portion of its "light" so that the
Lower Manas on its [path towards purity may benefit from the
universal Wisdom.
It is the Lower Manas, BECAUSE OF ITS ATTACHMENT TO KAMA (desires
and passions), which resists changes for the better. [ see in
THE LIGHT OF ASIA, Book 6, where the Buddha is tempted by the
Passions and Evils personified.]
We, the Higher Manas are able to see this. Since we cannot force
or coerce the Lower manas to change, how can we help?
If the Lower manas has to cleanse and purify itself, how and
where does it begin?
==================================

Your proposal to differentiate sounds to me like moving all the
dirt from the mirror to one side. This may help in looking in
part of the mirror, but it will not help in cleaning the rest.
And anyhow, the dirt seems to me (in practice) to be more sticky
and fluid, (and therefore more easily totally cleaned than
*moved*) than solid and without stain.

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

DTB In teaching Theosophy, it is H.P.B. in the KEY TO
THEOSOPHY who makes this distinction, and there she explains
fully why this is so. [ see pp. 92-3 120, 135-6, 159, 178-91 ]

DTB The "dirt" arises from ignorance of the Law and
from the belief that any evil can be somehow paid off (by
repentance and by penance) without make restitution and redress
to those whom we may have caused to have suffering an pain. We
have no right to retaliation, and we have no right to inflict
suffering on others.
As I see it, the problem is that in our daily lives we live in
that "dirt" and the "mind" we use is immersed in and habituated
to that condition. In fact in order to have the great evils of
our present civilization acceptable, much of our ordinary
thinking is blind to altruism, brotherhood and charity to
others -- how else to account for the idea of "strangers," or
"foreigners ?"
If there is ONE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT, then in truth xenophobia is a
disease.

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

> These are all innate to us, and Theosophy makes them plain for
us
> to test and adopt if true.

yes.

Katinka

=====
-Those who observe, learn, a whole life long.
-Wie observeert, leert , een heel leven lang.
=====