Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00027)

Tuesday, April 03, 2001


Dear Gerry :

Many thanks for your views.


Now for a few responses:


"Games" have their uses -- are they not an allegory for Karma and
its operations ? Or do you think they reflect "chance" only?
If so, then are there not the well known "Laws of Chance ?"

They raise the pairs of opposites: Law universal vs. the
possibility of unregulated and frivolous "CHANCE." (Or, is that
local law ?) Looking around us at Nature and its vast
cooperative actions, which do we find more universal?

Sometimes we are overwhelmed by the unexpected, but, even so does
that mean there is no LAW involved, even if We do not detect it?
Is our view so vast we can preclude CAUSE that we cannot
determine a dating for ?

I recall that both times in the Mahabharata, when the KARMA
fates and futures ) of the Pandavas was thrown into the
balance, (their integrity, honesty, dedication and patience were
being tested) a game of dice (which princes could not refuse to
play) was introduced by their evil cousins the Kurus, to show how
a severe reverse of fortune could be met with honest equanimity,
and how a promise ought to be kept. Needless to say the
myth/legend recounts that the Kurus were unfair and loaded the
dice against the Pandavas. So the outcome was a FALSE and
dishonest one.

Yes, I think, as we consider Karma and the Evolution of the whole
of Nature, to be serious stuff; yet, there is the humor of
incongruity if not absolute absurdity that relieves tensions from
time to time. I think H.P.B. indicated that of humor was a vital
necessity for the Theosophist to treasure. She stated in one
conversation, emphasizing two things: "Common sense;" and to
that, she added "A sense of Humor."

But still I wonder that so many waste time. And there is so
little of that around. Leisure and repose are moments of
recuperation for the expenditure of energy in some part of our
7-fold being. But that does not mean it is COMATOSE in its
entirety. The Physical is only 1/7th of the whole. What does
the rest do?

Colored glasses are useful in situations that demand them. But
if we don them we know we place a deliberate distortion on our
reporting senses. Is this necessary? Who knows for sure? No
one can say for another, but, only for themselves. Perception in
terms of Karmic consideration ought always to serve us as that
balancing "common sense." Are these not "tools" to be used at
our "beck and call." Who wants to be a martyr unnecessarily ?

But what is actually our CENTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS? Although
theorists locate this in the brain this does not give it
actuality for they cannot extract it or show its location. It is
a guess. The most learned all agree to this.

If the Mind has developed discernment then surely, this may well
rule our lives. But no one is asking anyone else to copy a
particular discipline. Virtue will always be the opposite of
vice and the difference is LAW. If one can perceive the results
of our actions in advance (perhaps having "been there before" --
as the Voice of Conscience (emanating from Buddhi) indicates, are
we then able to decide our future and the impact of our choices
on others. Are we not all granted that capability?

Are we fooling ourselves (and others) by "remaining in the dark?"
Or are we to indicate the logical and progressive views that
Theosophy offers? [ see for instance S.D. II 685 to 689 ] Does a
careful consideration of potential result in help, or hinder our
lives. How does one shape the future? -- I mean: Our future
and that of others in which we share ?

I always knew Mind = Manas. It is a basic concept restated in
H.P.B.'s KEY TO THEOSOPHY and in Judge's OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY.

MAHAT is the GREAT PRINCIPLE and is the Master of Evolution from
first to last in all worlds and the UNIVERSE (as I see it.). It
is the UNIVERSAL VERBUM or LOGOS, and it is UNIVERSAL KARMA. It
brings the manifested Universes into periodic being and then
takes it. And all beings involved, it takes them out (as we go
out between incarnations) to 'enjoy' a subjective (to our present
waking consciousness) kind of spiritual meditative effort named
Devachan, and a far vaster, deeper state not exactly named.

The sense of immortality (as I understand it) is due to the
permanent accretion to the eternal MONAD of the aggregates
acquired from the Higher Manas of each incarnation. (H.P.B. in
ISIS UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA , "Theosophist," Jan, 1886;
ULT -- H.P.B.'s Articles III 265)

Anyway, we all seek TRUTH in analogous ways.

I put some notes below as before.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:18 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: Manasic aspects? GAMES ?

<<As I see it, the business of living is serious and not games.>>

Dallas, why aren't I surprised???


DTB well I guess I rely much on karma as a basic
concept. The alternative is chaos and aimlessness (to me). I,
as "I AM I" prefer to be focused. Seems to me that the
definition of spirit and its permanent reality is preferable to
indeterminateness with nothing that has reality, security or
purpose -- I am of perhaps over-reaching somewhere in this. But
truly I see not secure and survivable alternative. I think doubt
and insecurity are our greatest foes -- they tend to make us
doubt ourselves.



<<From our infancy our attention has been drawn to what our
teachers
consider fundamental ideas. They hope we will adopt them.
Sometimes they
do not explain them.>>

Who are these teachers?? Parents? Caregivers? Gurus?


DTB I WAS THINKING OF THE TEACHERS We HAD IN SCHOOL
AND COLLEGE.


"Fundamental ideas" is a loose term that can have a million
meanings.



DTB Well, to me, FUNDAMENTALS are simple, plain
statements of incontrovertible truths. {I think H.P.B.'s 3
Fundamentals given in S.D. I 14 -19 will serve all of us very
well. But they have to be studied and rigorously analyzed.}



It doesn't mean much to me. There are times, Dallas, when I wish
I had such rose-colored glasses on to see the world in such vivid
black and white tones as you do. But I lost mine somewhere around
age 20.

<<In this instance you start out questioning the possibility of
games. In a Universe of laws and cooperation "games" are played
by those who have leisure.>>

Dallas, my very good friend. You have already spent 16 bazillion
lifetimes, and are scheduled for at least 16 bazillion more. What
do you have but time?



DTB FOR MYSELF, you are right.
Now: How am I going to use the time that streams in from our/my
future? How shall I make use of those bazillions of years? I
don't feel like letting them "slip by." But, then, we are not
all constituted with the same degree of urgency. Even if we
agree on a similarity of base and place that in the imperishable
and ever-present SPIRITUAL ABSOLUTENESS -- the ever-presence
which is THERE whether there is manifestation or none, whether
we call it by a term describing as far as we are able its
omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, or, whether we call
the center of ITS CONSCIOUSNESS in us a "ray."

I figure I haven't done too well with the past, so why not find
out what went wrong and avoid repeating errors? I know that
implies time and work and a focus on Nature's Laws as applied in
and through myself and my environment.

I know I might be on the wrong track, but testing Theosophy over
about 60 years now, I feel I have latched on to something really
valuable --at least as a method a system of looking at things,
that excludes nothing, and does not demand an impossible "leap of
faith" from my rather pragmatic and logical mind. I have spent
a lot of time looking into religions and have emerged with the
sense that they all are/were dual. Something for the populace
(laced with fear and mystery) and something for the Priests and
the Intellectuals. They, using their superior mental capacities
have usually joined hands to make of the "populace " their
fearful and resentful supporters.



<<1. Where was leisure secured? Is it of benefit to all, or
only to one or
a few?>>
As you are one who takes life seriously, and who doesn't have
time to play games, I suggest that you start reading HPB some
more. I think you may have missed something.



DTB Sorry I did not mean to give the impression I do
not play games or enjoy a well played and skilful match -- of
various games, but the time spent in doing this ought in my
esteem be kept moderate.
Do I sound like a Buddhist: " Moderation and the Middle Way ?"
I consider that has some value in it. And Buddhism is one of the
few "religions" which does not emphasize "authority." It
suggests that each none of us become authorities for ourselves.
The reason being that we cannot fully understand or grasp the
conditions of another human, his mix, his focus, and his "Way."


<<2. Is there a prototype or a paradigm in the Universe that
employs "leisure?">>
Your equation of game=leisure is such pure manasic miss-the-mark
fallaciousness that I can't even comment here. Dallas, your
manas is running! Your equation doesn't hold (but it is certainly
good for a few laughs). Pray tell me what you think you will GAIN
by all this evolution and involution business, and why such
gaining is so darned important. I am obviously missing something.



DTB I don't think I am trying to set records or to
"gain" anything. I'm trying to look at life and evolution as
Theosophy suggests and it seems to me to be serious stuff
alright.

Hopefully the "fundamentals" are similar for us all. In a "sea
of uncertainty" a floating person seeks for various things, land
being preeminent in his desires. But he also recognizes some
irrefutable facts. He is alive. The Ocean he floats on is
there. Land is the element he needs to locate (coming or
oing). -- and plenty moiré factors, some of which may assist his
survival and others may not. Seems to me we are in a similar
situation a least intellectually. So why not take good stock of
ourselves, as to potentials or situational possibilities to be
used, developed, avoided, etc... In terms of action what ought
to come first? And so on.



<<3. What would be the effect if Nature withdrew her "support /"
in order
to rest?>> Some kind of pralaya perhaps? What exactly IS
nature's
"support????" You ARE making a joke here, aren't you?


DTB Joke perhaps, but then you and I and the rest of
the world depend on the laws of chemistry, physics, biology,
nutrition, the exchange of ions from gases, the percolation of
water and other fluids, digestion, the diffusion of heat and
cold, cooperation and support from most of our environment, be it
city, country, friends, climate, relatives, etc., etc., and
10,000 things incidental to our ordinary health and living
processes. I don't know what other word to use to qualify our
suspended situation.
Life may be a joke for those who don't set up a "desire to know"
condition in their minds, and demand of any and all situations a
cause, a rationale. I try to do this. Ever since I met with the
description of the great VICES in Book 6 of THE LIGHT OF ASIA, I
gave tried to discover an explanation for them. I eventually
thought of explaining them as over-emphasized (exaggerate)
VIRTUES. The immoderate amplification causes the distortion. Is
this fair, or correct?

You and I live in a physical body that does very well without our
supervision being focused on each of its may processes. It seems
to have evolved a wonderful and almost fully automatic system of
survival. We occasionally heed its requests and feed, clean,
heat, and clothe it, or take it to places where it can do these
things for itself while we do something else. So in a broad way
we are tenants in an intelligent living entity and we do not
always give it credit for that wary and careful intelligence.
Was that no possibly developed over those zillions you mentioned?
Immortality may be for the atoms and their components, and
Intelligence may be the end result of an enormous variety of
experiences, the memory of which is impacted within each of them.
At least it is a possibility.



>>4. How is it that we "think" of leisure? Are any desires
attached to
that kind of thought? Are they selfishly personal or are they
impersonally
universal?>> I must have missed something in Mauri's post. I
don't
recall him saying anything at all about leisure. I need
to go back and re-read it.


DTB I was the one who introduced "LEISURE" as one of
the needs for time to play "games." Philosophically, to me, it
opened the door of inquiry into the karmic consequences of the
usage of one's time. It may be too simplistic (for me) to play
down "games" in terms of "leisure."

But, reverting to Mauri, I am awaiting to find him using the fine
mind he has to put things together instead of asking endless
questions which he (and we) ought, by now, to be figuring out for
ourselves, and he for himself. The urge to question -- has it
any relation to getting something for nothing? On the other
hand, does it mean progress? Are the questions genuine -- I mean
inspired by certain perceptions of UNIVERSALITY ? Or, are they
all based on some aspect of "Personality" enhancement ? I do not
know how I can answer this either for M, or for myself. So I try
to let THEOSOPHY do the answering, to the extent that I know of
its system.

That is why I harp on the fundamentals -- things we can refer
back to for the sake of simplicity and a common set of
experiences. If that is avoided then there is no end to
"supposes." How is doubt and wariness brought to a conclusion?
Each does it for himself.

But as a substitute to "What if...?" what can we legitimately put
there to RELY ON?

Supposing I was asking you the questions instead of Mauri
asking -- and my responding. Could not the 3 of us agree on
certain facts? If so, what are they ? I have during the past
year suggested some of those, but wait patiently to see if them
made an impact and are picked up for use, or LOGICALLY REJECTED.



<<5. What do we already know (and are sure of) ?>>
Excellent question, and one that no one at all can honestly
answer.



DTB I don't agree to that. We could not correspond
without a certain agreement on common basics: language,
meanings, concepts, potentials, goals, experience, etc...
Perhaps our dialogs are the result of our desire to discover
congruency ? But then congruency implies a similarity of object,
method and teaching, does it not ? It is not an impossible
identity, but a mutual sharing in some vaster IDEA ?



<<Reviewing Theosophical doctrines I would say: 1

1.. "Manas" is MIND -- and it acquires the designation of
"Higher" or
"Lower" only when it is allied to, or used by, one or the other
to two
opposed "principles" in a human. It is these which are opposed
to each
other, as Wisdom (Buddhi) is opposed to ignorance and folly
(Kama)>>

Dallas, I am really glad to see you using my equation of
mind=manas. Some years ago you strongly objected to such an
equation. And I agree with what you say here (this is kinda
scary).



DTB If I had objected to that Idea (which to me has
always been basic) then I am deeply puzzled. Mind and Manas are
equivalents. H.P.B. used that same equivalent almost 115 years
ago. Manas in Sanskrit means both Man and Mind. In sd I pp.
181-2 I believe we find the middle "line of Evolution" called the
"Intellectual." That to me implies MIND and MAN as an
independent THINKER.



<<2. The Mind ( Manas ) per se is neutral. It is a faculty or a
tool. It
is used by the REAL MAN ( the MONAD in incarnation -- you and me,
here and
now) to remember, to prepare potential scenarios (and their
results) and to
serve as a basis for any and all acts, thoughts, deeds, and
words.>>

OK, now I begin to see your seriousness. Manas is no fooling
around. Actually I agree. Manas always tends to take life
seriously. Thank God we are more than manas! See if you
can take this "tool" and sort of set it aside and then look
behind it for a few minutes. You could be amazed at what
you see (if you see blank nothingness, then you are not
looking hard enough).


DTB I've never yet met "blank nothingness." Using
the vision of either the physical or the mental "eye" one is able
to construct in either physical or mental "matter." Such records
relate to memory or to anticipation. But in either case it
presupposes the MIND is creative, and believes it is immortal,
and not limited by time. Let's take MEDITATION. It is either
active or passive. But were it entirely PASSIVE, then for the
person who selected that state it would indeed leave no
"memories" that it can retrieve, as the faculty of "memory" ON
THAT PLANE would have been interrupted. However, the "return" to
consciousness --waking up again in this plane -- implies to me
that there is SOMETHING IN ME which is not involved -- which is
aside from -- the passive condition of meditation selected.
(Example: being stunned in an accident, or by a blow; being
anaesthetized, entering a "trance" state, etc... )

If there is any "return" to this CONSCIOUSNESS of "I AM I", then
the continuity of CONSCIOUSNESS which is unmodified by events
that involve the physical memory is to be inferred. I presume
that under hypnosis eve the memory of such a state of non-being
and non-recording on this plane could be evoked from the deeper
strata of the "I AM I."



<<3. Briefly stated the difference between WISDOM and FOLLY is a
clear
knowledge of the Universal LAWS that prevail, interpenetrate and
support all
things.>>

The above reminds me of an interesting book by Aleister
Crowley called Wisdom and Folly, but that's another story.
And the differences are not so much as you may think. One
person's wisdom is another's folly, and what is wisdom
for me today was folly yesterday, and so on...



DTB I was shown some of the works and concepts
Crowley and of the "Golden Dawn," but found them severely limited
to our one life-time personality. And, to what appears to be, as
goal, the selfish "enjoyment" of it in ways that were
questionable to me. Hence I have never given it much further
consideration. I found too much that was not congruent with its
horizons, and it left too much undefined. A life of selfish
"enjoyment" is still a waste of energy, as far as I can see it.
The future remains questionable if not undefined.



<<Thus you have :
1. Wisdom, based on the essential nature of universality and
eternity, and
a striving to live in cooperation with Universal LAW [KARMA]
..<<

OK, so strive. I strived for many years, and was told by
my guru that I was like a dog chasing his own tail.


DTB DID HE GIVE REASONS FOR THAT ?


My wife had told me that same thing earlier, but being my wife
I tended to ignore her. But when my own gurus said it, I
took it to heart. He was right. I haven't chased after
such nonsense since that day. Striving is an absolute
necessity at the beginning of the Path, but has to be
given up along the way if one is to get anywhere.



DTB How does one learn from anyone?

An illustration of futility (tail chasing) must be based on some
error of basic comprehension of actuality. [ The animal
consciousness has limits -- true. But in Man, "Instinct," the
"animal consciousness" can be transcended. Was that his message?
Curious. ]

How can one rectify one's views, once that one's attention is
drawn to such a situation.

Wives have a tendency to be intuitive, I have found, and seem to
pierce to the Center of things, whereas we men want to argue and
think we are being "logical." On the other hand I always recall
the statement made to one who said he was "following his voice of
Conscience." "Make sure that the Conscience you follow is not
one of a fool!" How does one learn to distinguish? Where does
one secure discrimination? Do Universal principles in which we
are "one of the participants" provide this?



<< And, 2. Folly, based on ignorance, selfishness, and
desires, the result of which
are in opposition to universal and impartial LAW. >>

In theory I agree with you here. But in practice I have
yet to meet anyone who is not ignorant and selfish and
who has purified all desires. In short, all humans are
ignorant and selfish and thus subject to Folly. The
answer here is NOT to somehow trade in folly for wisdom
(read a LLewellyn book for that!) but to transcend
our own humanity.



DTB Take the individual you call "guru." You
evidently recognize there a depth of perception that is
respectable because of its innate quality. Unless you also have
some portion of the same quality, you would not make the
recognition.. Would you ? How far does the "guru" take you? Do
you grasp the logic he presents? Is it Universal and impersonal
? Is it something that anyone can use ?



<< One might say that the "fool" refuses to consider the
existence of LAW as
an essential to all life.>> Both the fool and the wise one -
these are not so different
sometimes... And where you see "law," I see "game rule," and
I don't think that there is so much difference there either.



DTB A change of designation does not remove or alter
the qualities of anything, but it does require of those who
exchange ideas a greater flexibility and mutual understanding.
I would say that in my observation the "fool" is one does things
without understanding -- to him a "leap of faith" is acceptable.
He is impatient and any "motion" is better than inertia. But, he
makes little or no effort to "find out." So he remains
vulnerable in his ignorance.

The "Wise" may appear "foolish" from the fool's standpoint. He
does not detect the actions and the probing of the "Wise" -- who
uses his (more experienced ?) mind to remember, construct and
create wider, more inclusive potential futures and then test them
with the qualities of stability and reason which he has so far
made sure of.

Is this wrong? I would say not.

Is it cautious? I would say it is.

Is it worthy of man? I would applaud as it shows the dawning of
the use of the mind. Also the wariness one ought to develop
against desire and passion motivated impatience and
precipitation. This demands the use of the balance, of the
"Middle Way." Only the well developed, calm and controlled mind
can do this.

In this example you have a "game" established by a "Planner."
You, as honest and sincere 'player,' agree (or disagree, with
notice to other 'players') to abide by the limits and rules of
the "Game Plan" selected. [ This is a favorite theme in fiction
and mysteries. Individualism then permits divergence and this may
be beneficent or catastrophic. In any case it produces an
interesting sequence.]

Is it not curious that LAWS re-enter the equation ? They seem
inescapable. Who fears or is repelled by law ? And if so, why?

Does this not indicate that at least one of the "Players" is
consciously able to view his position as a variable? And if this
is so the ability of "self-select" -- is this from something
superior to the Mind? If so, What ? Is this faculty one that
anyone has, whether developed or not ?



<<In its educative sense the Nature then acts through Karma
to show him the effect of selfish choosing. He becomes the target
of his own
errors and the painful follies of selfish choice. {This fact is
the basis
for religions in which priests pretend to be able to act as
intercessory wit
a personal God who might arrange to have the effects mitigated or
removed.>>

This is how the game is played, yes. The game of life
is not always fun, although it should be. For most of
us, it is filled with so much suffering that I can
only wonder why more people don't want to go ahead and
win the darn thing and be done with it.



DTB As I see it, when the "Prize" is won, the
specialized ability he has developed as a conscious and continued
usage, remains in the hand of the acquirer.

But apparently, Universal prizes demand that this "winner" not
employ them in any way that henceforth would be solely determined
for and by themselves. To us and our way of personal thinking,
winning is a "personal acquisition," and the placing of a
"copy-right" or an embargo (not to be exported unless paid for)
over the "prizes" one wins. {Actually they are not 'new," but
only re-discoveries of facts and laws embedded in the processes
of Nature. She is always FIRST in all things. How did that
happen ?

Apparently this is (sequestration and personalizing) is not the
view that Nature or Karma takes. In effect the "prizes" are
already established and in use. Nature has done this in her
attempt to make everything supportive of our (and the rest of
existing beings ) existence; and , is there to be no
"recognition" of our attempts and searches. In other words
Nature is generous and makes free with the secrets she holds
providing the seeker is able to coincide with personal
impartiality (purity) to her purposes and operations.
Since she already CONTAINS EVERYTHING, we are seekers, probers
and self-seeking workers, are only re-discoverers. We cannot
honestly claim novelty, and at most, in recent times, we can
claim primacy of detection and description. As examples I think
of Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Paracelsus, Faraday, Volta,
Edison, Tesla, Steinmetz, etc... and a whole host of Scientists
in various fields.

There is no real fame to feed our pride in such things. Yet, we
appear to yearn to receive unlimited personal recognition for our
pioneering attempts. Very curious psychologically. What does a
wise man do in a forest where there is no audience? Was this a
reason why traditionally Indian yogis retired? Is there some
kind of vulnerability in our own "claque" emanating from our
personality? Is the personality to be questioned about its
integrity? If so does the INDIVIDUALITY (Higher Self) within us
have that power and that charity ?



<< The remaining problem which is not addressed is the
compensation to the
victims. >> What happened to good ol' karma?


<<4. Any person (who by definition is a LIVING CONSCIOUSNESS, an
IMMORTAL
ENTITY) lives in the world of his PRESENT DESIRES, and employs
his mind to
fabricate "impossible castles in Spain." These delusions are
also
illusions, and have no continued validity.>>

Dallas, please point out to me only one person in this
world who does not fabricate such illusions. Where is
your "validity." Maybe you think that you have it? Do
you see Truth where everyone else sees illusion? If so,
I will promise to take things more seriously in the
future... but on the other hand if you think that the
writings of HPB are all pure literal truth, then far be it
for me to burst your bubble.



DTB As to "good ol' Karma," if it applies to others
than why not to us in equal measure? If we created pain
deprivation, suffering, known or unknown to others, why should
not KARMA take this into account and require of us retributive
balancing ? I don't think Karma is entirely one-sided. If we
took a part in bringing Karma to another, then we are the ones to
receive any adjustment for our personal bias (if any) in doing
that. How can we mitigate this inevitable fate ? What is our
continuing responsibility to those others involved?

Also, making personal claims (concerning one's achievements)
proves nothing at all. It is always up to the listener or reader
to verify the accuracy of a report. On the other hand not all
reports are exaggerations. I would say that the spiritual
Individualities invested with the names and qualities of the
Brothers, the Adepts, Rishis, Buddhas, Dhyanis, etc... according
to the criteria that Theosophy places on such personal and
Individual achievements, indicates that self-illusion and
delusion have been controlled and destroyed in those cases. I
would go so far as to say that we can all achieve such detachment
and control from the surrounding veils of Kama. Is this not
called in mysticism: "Developing the Faultless Vision ?"

According to Theosophy, (as I understand it) the cycle at
present of the evolution of human intelligence, is marked by the
general ROUND cycle of Kama (the desire principle.) but a
sub-cycle, the 5th RACE, marks the special development of Manas
Mind). Hence we have (if this is true ) the development through
Kama-Manas (or the desire mind) [ S.D. I p. 200-1 ] The
tendency to thinking would then be tinged with the faculty of
desire (Kama) and its tendency to embellish, rather than to
record and report accurately. But, superior to the Kama-Manasic
intelligence of our waking lives is the Perception of the Monad
that we are at our core: ATMA-BUDDHI. This working through the
Higher Manas (Buddhi-Manas) can maintain control over the Lower
Mind and the personal desires that have attached themselves to
it.

But if we are aware of this possibility, if we can hold a tight
rein in controlling the fractious personality, Kama-desire, and
the Lower manas, and make sure as far as possible that accuracy
is maintained over memory. We may avoid rash action and pass
forward to higher and better responsibilities. But is not the
"Personality" purified to that extent. I'm sure you recall the
article THE ELIXIR OF LIFE -- "Five Years of Theosophy, p. 1. "
It seems there that the purification of the astral body is a part
of this evolutionary process.

Let me give you an illustration -- It is probably a bad one: In
the course of my life I have had occasion to visit Ankor Wat and
Ankor Thom several times in Cambodia. This was before the recent
wars that rolled over and I am given to understand have altered
physically many aspects of that area. I am sure that some of the
pictures I have show places now damaged or obliterated among the
120 to 150 different edifices scattered in a 10 mile radius of
that place. If I tried to describe them, I would be inaccurate.
The pictures restore that. [ ISIS UNVEILED gives a description
of this place IS I 561-572 and specially of its antiquity. I
say this because the edifices as they were even 30 years ago are
quite different from their original appearance. I seem to recall
that in one place H.P.B. indicates they are the 2nd most occult
buildings in our world. ]

I have been several time to Kabul in winter and in spring - which
was too early to go over the lower of the "high passes" (choked
with snow at that time of year) that lead through the Hindu Kush
range to Bamian. [ see S.D. II 336-340 ] So while I have seen
the photographic pictures taken of the statues that were intended
to show graphically and physically the decrease in size of human
stature as the ROUNDS passed - cut into the rock there, many
millions of years ago - - I never got to see those places in
person. Now of course, only the vast alcove and the imprint of
what must have been enormous statues carved out of the rock can
be seen.

Does that mean those were illusions, and never were, or that they
did not have a significance? I also was told that the Buddhist
trappings were imposed over the far older original carvings.
This was done some 1.400 or so years back to help to preserve
their eroded dimensions. I was recently quite shocked to see
that under orders of the ruling Taliban at least two of the
highest of those 5 (one for each change in height in the past 5
RACES) historically valuable statues, had been pulverized with
explosives. But then, fanatics with no long range capacities or
sense of history and its value do things like that.

Does it mean that the basic reason for those statues vanishes one
they are physically destroyed? Yes. Myths and legends will
arise to account for their absence.

Isn't it strange that we hear of and now see evidence of the
destruction of information, and, may we not say that cycles of
wisdom and cycles of ignorance seem to sweep over humanity like
giant waves. I have in mind events like Alexander's destruction
of Persian records and sacred places -- temples of the Magi, and,
in Egypt, of Sacred Egyptian Temple Libraries being destroyed by
an early Islamic general who conquered Egypt and defaced those
ancient places. [ Under Emperor Aurangzeb and other Islamic
fanatics, many portions of Indian temples and records were also
destroyed in the 12th to 17th centuries, as the military
conquests of the Deccan and south India were implemented. ] Of
Jewish records and documents being destroyed by the invading
Romans. [1st Cent. BC] And so on. One can think of the darkness
of a thousand years that enveloped Europe when the R.C. church
had almost complete power. What would have happened if the
Renaissance had not occurred?

My point is that there are records of the destruction of wisdom
and knowledge that proved in retrospect to have driven humanity
into deeper areas of need and want. One wonders why. Was it
delusion, illusion, ignorance, or a far deeper impulse that
opposes Science, History, and the progression of man's
intelligence as a race ?

In my travels over Asia I have seen great ancient waterworks,
dams, irrigation channels all around the periphery of the central
Mountains - Himalaya, Caucasus, and others. Some have been
preserved and some damaged or destroyed. The British used and
restored the vast network in the Indo-Gangetic plains. And,
there are others to be seen in the foothills of Western China,
where the four great rivers descend into the plains from the
central plateaus of Tibet. In the North of Thailand, Burma,
Laos, Viet-Nam one can see more of these vast water works, some
are still active and preserved so as to function even today. The
evidence of hydro-engineering speaks of high Science practiced
for the general good in ancient times. All around the world in
the past 2 to 3 centuries we have seen vast public works designed
to assist in improving agriculture and eliminating starvation --
how long will they last. And, in California today we suffer
rolling blackouts and electrical shortages because of the greed
of a few who control the circulation of electrical power -- and
call this the economics of progress? Don't make me laugh.

If the ancient irrigation system that made the "Hanging Gardens
of Babylon" traditionally famous, were restored near the
mountain exits of the Tigris and the Euphrates, the whole of the
Mesopotamian desert could be made to flourish again. And the
same could be done in the Elbruz mountains north of Tehran. And
instead of endless and useless desert there would be farms,
plantations and plenty for the poor and the farmers, instead of
grinding poverty and want. If one flies over Arabia from Yemen
on to Baghdad in Iraq anyone who looks down at the terrain can
see in what is now desert, the traces of these vast works, and of
trade paths leading to abandoned cities of the past. Some are
being disinterred and rediscovered.

But one cannot help wondering why there are such great cycles of
plenty and scarcity. Will for instance, the "global warming" and
the melting of vast glaciers eventually overwhelm with ocean
water the present populous cities on the continental beaches of
the world as we presently know it? And then will a new "Glacial
age" succeed that ?
I consider that I have been fortunate to be able to verify some
of the far-flung examples of those traces of the wisdom of the
past that H.P.B. speaks of. But, as I said, what may satisfy me,
does not prove anything to others.



<<Such a person opposes the supportive and cooperative
orderliness of the
World and Universe.>>

What is all of this orderliness but the game rules.
You can't play this game any way you want to, you
know. Its not a board-game that you can just quit
whenever you want to. Its not just a way to spend
leisure time, at least not for most of us. But one
gets into trouble by taking it so seriously, and I
am worried about you.



DTB You may have missed my point. I mean that the
laws and rules of nature exist and we cannot escape them, break
or bend them to some extent, but in the end they prevail. As I
see it, there are more proofs FOR "Law and order," than against
it. Take astronautics, mathematics and spatial physics (much of
it based on our knowledge of physical laws on our Earth -- and
presupposing that the rest of the Universe is sufficiently like
our own situation as to make extrapolations and theories useful
as a basis for exploring. Is this not evidence of Laws working
in and out of our area?

Why is it when we come to analyze our human situation that we
rebel at the concept of laws operating and ruling our existence?

Consider the rules and laws of chemistry, physics, mathematics
and biology that rule the formation and the survival of our
physical bodies? Are they not uniformly dependable, so much so
that they form the basis for medical practice and the curative
sciences?

Why suppose that only in the area of psychology, intelligence,
ethics, and the spiritual there are no laws nor any possibility
of making valid discoveries concerning laws in operation there?
I am puzzled by this gap. Materialism steps in and ascribes to
observations various hypothetical fundaments which are not
incontrovertibly to be proved. This is a study in itself: man,
the miniature copy of the Universe is deemed to be an
uncontrollable "something," an enigma.



<<5. The Person who lives in WISDOM is aware of all the Facts,
fundamentals
and Laws of this Universe.>> As far as I know, such only are
Buddhas or avataras and
their like. Living in full wisdom is a lot like lucid dreaming,
and after a while the fun goes out of it and
one deliberately drifts back into sleep mode for a time.


DTB I am of the opinion that we all at some level in
our nature are quite aware of the Universal situation and its
orderliness. We may not "like" it (as Personalities), but likes
and dislikes have little power to change things as they are.

If anything, our attempt to make changes suitable to ourselves,
only demonstrates the power that Kama-desire has over us. But,
then I am of the opinion that in each of us lives both a Buddha
and an Avatar and that we as personalities keep them locked up
under the fear that their presence might change our physical
situation for ever? If we respect them, then what are we afraid
of ? It is a continuation (to me) of the ancient battle -- as
depicted in the BHAGAVAD GITA, or as taught by the Buddha, where
Evil and selfishness battle against Truth and the Good. Who will
win in us?

If the "principle" of Buddhi is a fact, then we have stored in
our make-up then the closest thing to solving the problem is
right at hand. But how do we tackle it? Are we to reject the
Theosophical doctrines because they do not fit the hypotheses of
Science? Or should then be given "their day in court?"



<<6. In the GENERAL PROGRAM OF EVOLUTION (as Theosophy describes
it) the
MONAD (or immortal "life-unit") passes over long aeons securing
first-hand
experience, by passing through all the conditions offered by
Nature -- so
that it acquires a memory of those -- which is impacted eternally
in its own
consciousness.>>

Here is perhaps the fundamental difference between you and
me as Theosophists: You see the monad ITSELF doing all of
this migrating stuff, while I see only its "ray" doing so.
This seeming minor point forms the basis of a whole
range of differing viewpoints and assumptions.


DTB As far as I can determine from what I read in the
S.D. and elsewhere, the fundamental "life-unit" is the MONAD.
(Its constitution as a "life-unit" is a way of expressing this
fact to us who are bound up in the materialistic limitations of
this cycle - Kama-manasic, personal, matter-limited,
isolationist, selfish-oriented, etc... (these are broad
characterizations and non-specific as to persons).

It makes little difference whether the MONAD moves or sends in a
"ray." In either case an action for the benefit of another
"party" has occurred. The Karma of the choice will be paid
eventually. Are we possibly witnesses to this "Battle" occurring
in and around us? In The BHAGAVAD GITA, Krishna, the personified
Universal Teacher (or a "ray" of the ONE WHOLE if you prefer,
speaking to his pupil Arjuna ( the Personality who aspires to
becoming Spiritual) repeatedly suggests that the pupil, after
learning the state of things, stand aside as one who is
personally involved, can surveying the field and understand it,
yet, let the divine Avatara within do the fighting. This is not
to make of Arjuna ( Nara, or man -- the Mind) a passive figure,
because Krishna urges him to perform his duties and
responsibilities with a "full understanding of what their results
will be." The implication left to us is that Krishna (the HIGHER
SELF) within Arjuna always implores him to learn the facts of
nature and his existence, and then, without any coercion, He
URGES HIM (Arjuna) to independently choose that which seems to
be the right thing to do. And DO IT. All action and all Karma
eventually falls back on the disciple -- the Personality who is
the active agent in this plane on our world.
I would of course include myself (as an Arjuna) in this category,
but I also think I can recognize in myself (as in all others) the
presence of a detached ENTITY, which answers in terms of
definition to that of the ETERNAL SELF (or rather as you might
put it : "its 'Ray'") . H.P.B. uses the term and defines it
S.D. I 222, 57, 64, (69 - omnipresent, spiritual), (7-fold--
S.D. I 130, 571-4, S.D. II 24, 132, 635, ) (white and 7 colors
S.D. II 492).

It really makes no difference if we think of it as omnipresent,
eternal, omniscient, and the root of all manifestation - or
whether we differentiate and try to localize each of its "rays"
in a specific form.

In the world of "SPIRIT" (as I see it) all is said to be ONE and
impartite. It is only in our physical plane minds, that we
believe that existence implies SEPARATENESS, SELFISHNESS and
ISOLATION.

Consider (as above stated) that the "material" aspect of the
MONAD is Buddhi - BUDDHI means WISE in Sanskrit, and as it is
also eternal. It is called "Primordial Matter." It has also been
called an aspect of the ABSOLUTENESS, which has opted to assume a
'lesser' position than SPIRIT -- so as to form a mirror, or a
contrast." It is WISE with the accumulated experience of
innumerable past lives of experience and existence. We will have
to grant to that universality, and also immortality, as every
Monad is said to reflect every other MONAD, without any shadings
or differences.

If we try to project the future of each monad we may come to see
that in the end, having achieved the eminence of a Bodhisattva, a
Buddha, or an Avatara, it may elect in its service of humanity
and the world in its setting in the Universe, to place itself in
proximity to a specific monad that is entering the human stage
and developing self-consciousness. It does this so as to serve
(without coercion or expected recompense) as a kind of tutor (and
may be referred to as THE HIGHER SELF [ see TRANSACTIONS OF THE
BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp. 64-78; BCW Vol 10, pp. 252 - 264 ] The
doctrine of there being TWO Egos in Man is explained in S.D. II
167, 254, 225, 58, 109-110. This would also account for your
adopting the concept of the "ray" detailed to relate to a
specific human. This is a little difficult to encompass, I would
say.



>>Thus it passes through the conditions of embodiment in a form
in, successively, mineral, vegetable, and animal stages of form
and cooperative experience.>>

Or its "ray" does. After some number of manvantaric pilgrimages,
the ray returns to its parent none the
worse off but none the better either.


DTB AGREED (as above )



<<7. It (the indestructible Center of CONSCIOUSNESS: the MONAD)
then
proceeds to the next step -- into a HUMAN BODY -- >>

I cannot accept this as Theosophical, but rather as a
misunderstanding. The Divine Monad never enters any body,
human or otherwise. How could something spiritual and
perfect enter into anything??? How can the infinite
enter into something finite? How can something immortal
enter into anything mortal???


DTB I AGREE that in strict truth this cannot be. But
then, how would one accurately describe to a newcomer the nature
of the "Ray ?" If it is a true reflection of the ATMA then it
can only be reflected in and on as pure a focal place (matter)
as its source. If such does not yet exist, then how is it
created ? To cut across this difficulty the MONAD is said to be
a bifocaled entity with BUDDHI being the "material yet wholly
purified" FOCAL POINT of the power of ATMA.



<<This physical form is far in advance of the animal body as to
its
sensitivity and capacities. >>

As an animal lover, I reject this statement as a human
ego trip. I will agree that the human brain is more
evolved allowing for greater technology but that's about
it. For someone who talks about selfishness all the
time, why are you so big on humans being superior to
animals? Isn't it a selfish idea?



DTB Animal lovers, as we all are, are all grateful to
the animal kingdom. But do we actively protect these weak ones
now? Theosophically speaking, the S.D. Vol. 2, 681...) shows
clearly on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE prevalent in her days, (and
further validated by independent research since) that H.P.B. was
right is saying the human frame pre-dated that of the present
group of animals in this ROUND. The physiology and morphology of
the ape frame is a DESCENT from man. According to the rules of
evolution the human frame (of a WALKER) could not have developed
from the more specialized frame of a "CLIMBER." But the
framework of a "climber" could well through specialization be
derived from a WALKER. Even modern text-books in medical and
veterinary anatomy and physiology point this out. But this is
dealing with man as though the physical body alone was the cause
of evolution instead of being the occasional evidence for it.
(There are so few fossils.)



<<As I see it, our living here and now is serious business and
not
frivolity. One has to learn and grasp the fundamentals of life
instead of
the superficialities of doubt, and suppose. >>

I said that life is a game. I did not say it was
frivolous or superficial (although it IS an illusion).


<<Essentially, one has to learn to become a UNIVERSAL MAN-MIND, a
being who
perceives around him the reign of universal Brotherhood.>>

When I look around me, I observe very little universal
brotherhood. It is certainly not in any kind of a "reign."
Brotherhood is a fact on the inner planes, but not yet
expressed in the physical. Your "UNIVERSAL MAN-MIND"
is too limiting, and not at all what Blavatsky wants
us to do - she wants us to transcend our man-mind
altogether.


DTB The Universal Man-Mind is not original to me, but
is a concept found at the root of every ancient religion and
philosophy to express the essential unity of all seemingly
separate aspects of the Universe. These are words used to paint
an idea of brotherhood and universality in action,

BEST WISHES AS ALWAYS TO YOU,

Dal

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

Thanks Dallas. I do enjoy these discussions.

Jerry S.