Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00204)

> In a message dated 08/20/01 8:52:08 PM, eldon@theosophy.com writes:
>
> > At 06:48 PM 8/18/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > > By what mechanism does the soul leave Devachan and
> > > re-enter the physical body? When is it decided that
> > > this occurs?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mic
> > After the death of the physical body, the remaining
> > life energies take time to dissipate themselves....
> > -- Eldon
> The important questions to ask, I would think, would be; Where is
> all this (even partially) explained? By whom? And, how can you
> (or anyone else) personally "know" the details with such positive
> assurance? ... And if so, how can we trust such "subjective"
> experience -- since, as HPB implied, all such experience is often
> subject to illusion, delusion and confusion?
This is an important area of discussion, as involved as
the after-death topic. How do we know Theosophy? When
we talk about it, what can we can? Who know is and is
entitled to speak? What is an accurate theosophical
idea and what is the mere opinion of a student?

There are different approaches taken in the different
theosophical groups. One may say that we can know
nothing ourselves, the subject is so vast that we can
only refer people to quotes from authoritative literature.
Another approach, on the other end of the spectrum is that
anything you may think is ok, that anything goes, it's
all a matter of personal interpretation, and there is
no abstract, objective reality apart from people's
perceptions.

I'd tend to prefer the middle ground. I'd say we can
explore ideas beyond those we can readily infer from
what we'd call primary authority, the source
theosophical literature. The test of new ideas is that
they ring true, that they're supported by what we
know from the basic philosophy, that a good argument
be made for them based upon what we know of Theosophy,
and that they're flexible in nature, willing to be
reformulated in the light of additional information and
insights on the subject.

I'd also say that there are more than one way of
knowing things, that we can know of things "by
experience" without having to physically be there
and perceive the things with our ordinary senses.
I'd consider this a power latent in mind that we
all have access to, as theosophical students, and
something we could tap into in our studies and
reflections on life. How else, for instance, do
we perceive the reality of what happens at the
birth of our world system, as described in the
early Stanzas of Dzyan?

> And, since when did the Dhyan Chohans "make" the laws? I always thought, as
> explained (the 2nd Fundamental Principle) in the Proem to the Secret
> Doctrine, that the fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity, which would
> govern both Karma and its derivative action of Tanha, were inherent in the
> nature of the Absolute prior its manifestation -- before any so called Dhyan
> Chohans (as conscious entities) might appear on the scene. If so -- then,
> how would the Dhyan Chohans, be able to do anything to change or "make" 
those
> laws?
As I understand it, there are two One's or Absolutes,
with laws and ways of relating to existence. The first
is truly unknowable, and deals with the patterns of
how things work in an ultimate sense. It is what we'd
truly call infinite, since it bears no direct relation
to any particular thing, however lofty.

The second One is the Head of a particular scheme of
existence. However big or grand this particular world
or universe is, it is finite, has a top, has limits,
can be transcend, and is measurable on some scale.
When we talk about the start of things, we're talking
about the start of one of these schemes, patterned
according to absolute Law, but resulting from the
incarnation or embodiment of a particular being. Within
this being are a multitude of life-atoms, the inhabitants
of that "universe".

The first type of Laws, relating to the Ultimate, are
more what you're referring to. The second type of
laws, which refer to the governing of the behavior of
matter and beings that exist within the matrix of life
created by the second One, are what I'm talking about.

> They may be the "architects" who initially construct the objective
> Cosmos, but even those would have to obey (as human architects also must) 
the
> fundamental Laws of Universal (as well as particularized) Nature.
>
> I believe it's also a teaching of the Vedas that Parabrahm and Brahma, are
> both subject to the fundamental "desire to exist" or Tanha. (I find no
> disagreement with this in theosophy.) How else would they have gotten the
> analogous and corresponding impulse, or Tanha (equivalent to our "tanha") to
> express themselves and "live" in the world of objectivity? Does this not
> also apply to the Dhyan Chohans as well?
Yes, we could consider "tanha" to refer to the basic
creative urge that causes any Monad to want to seek
existence, to send forth a ray of consciousness into
the lower planes to go through cyclic evolution from
elemental to godhood.

> Much food for thought -- huh (which I think all "theosophists" should be
> nourishing their minds on in the privacy of their own inner sanctuary)?
> Maybe, the only one who can answer these profound questions related to
> Devachan and other aspects of the afterlife, is the "Master" within each of
> us. It would help, also, to have a clear understanding of the three
> Fundamental Principles -- as a result of "Self devised and Self determined
> study and effort" -- don't you think? Isn't this the only means to achieve
> "Self realization" -- as the ultimate goal for each theosophist to strive 
for?

All the theosophical ideas relate to one another.
Each throws more light on our understanding, as
we combine them in new and different ways. That's
why it's helpful for us to take them, like musical
notes, and make new compositions, putting them
together in new and fresh ways, knowing that there's
only so many times we can repeat the same tune before
its power fades, needing renewal and re-expression.

-- Eldon