Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00369)

Tuesday, October 23, 2001

Dear "Nos"

I have enjoyed our conversations.

Sometimes you act like an irritant (I guess, I do too) but I try
to think of those who also read our exchanges. How can we best
help them, even if we are having fun poking fun at some things,
"pulling chains" etc... How do they get to know if we are
serious or not? I, personally, would not leave any one in
perplexity.

I enjoy theosophy so much as a base for operations, I'd like all
to be able to share in it equally. There's a lot to learn, a lot
to un-wrangle, and a lot which we do not grasp yet.

Best wishes,

Dal

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



-----Original Message-----
From: nos [mailto:nos@granite.net.au]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 10:08 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: The Mahatma letters.

Hi DTB - comments as usual inserted betwixt...

|-----Original Message-----
|From: dalval14@earthlink.net [mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net]
|Sent: Monday, 22 October 2001 5:56 AM
|To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
|Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: The Mahatma letters.
|
|
|Sunday, October 21, 2001
|
|
|Dear Nos:
|
|I guess I am too serious -- but Theosophy is an important tool
|for me, and I always hope to engage others who have studied it
|in a dialog that enlightens us both.

Enlighten - to lighten up? Geddit?

|"Glommel" sound gloppy to me. Messy sticky stuff -- how to
|escape from it?

See now we're getting somewhere...

|
|But I think that my view of the Universe and of Mankind is
|that they are (in some ways) mirror aspects of one-another.
|Analogies but not exact correspondences. A kind of
|individualism in a universe elastic enough to permit personal
|latitudes. Hence no straight jackets to be issued, but, to
|the extent that any one wanders from the "straight and narrow"
|of sensitive and cooperative life, so will the reaction be
|form Nature, in an impersonal way on the deviant. I see that
|this is called Karma by the old Hindus and perhaps they have a
point.

My interpretation is that - and to give an anaology here - we as
the
individual 'ego' that seems to instruct and make decisions for
the field
that seems tobe a body differnetiated from other bodies on the
physical
plane - are in fact a HOST - of smaller bodies whose will has
been bent
to that of the 'ego' and that also in this way that each of us
indivudually is like unto that host and that a greater willin
fact
controls us all - what passes for indivualism is a
differentiation on
that lower plane of will. Does that even make close to sense?
So I'm the boss of my blodd cells and dna etc - then say to our
sun -
SOL - OM - ON - RA etc the planets are like his dna -his light is
like
an akasic blood - the planets then are a higer rank than us etc -
but we
as man are the experiencing conscious of the universe that is -
we as
man exist for the purpose of the universe in existing - that's
not to
say that a species of being on a planet in a system lioght years
a way
is not also that same expression.. Speed of light is a certain
number
for a reason - there';s a geometric proof somewhere - if I can
find
it... Gee I'm getting way from the point here..

|[Man the microcosmic Monad, mirrors the potentialities of the
|UNIVERSAL MONAD -- which may mean nothing to you unless you
|are familiar with theosohial terminology and meanings -- the
|Monad is said to consist of polar opposites: 1. SPIRIT
|(Perfection in all things) and 2. PRIMORDIAL MATTER (or
|perfection in terms of limits and substance].

Dal - at this point let me say this. I've been on this list for
like 4
years - You have corresponded with me persoanlly before - we have
had
many online discussions - surely youmust know thenthat I was
pulling
your chain with the Aldous Huxley/Hobbit stuff. Of course I've
read SD,
vols 1,2,3 - Isis, key to theopshy, esoteric budhism, the gita,
the
bardo thodrol, the emerald tablet, the archidoxes of magik, keys
to
kabbalah by bain, etc etc etc do I need to go on...

| There is a duality in all things, one is constructive (if you
|will allow the parameters to remain lose) and the other is
|destructive. One leads to a future and the other to
|annihilation of all life or effort. The first leads to a
|recognition of Karma (the law of cause and effect, justly and
|fairly administered) and of Reincarnation (the use of the
|immortal SPIRIT/SOUL of many bodies -- so that the "learning
|process is continued") The second is full of suspicion and
|doubts and sees only the chaotic side of a life of luck,
|chance and uncertainty. It therefore evolves in its
|consciousness no ability to perceive harmony among discords
|and dynamism with a purpose inherent in it.

Shiva-Shakti-Vishnu - you left one out - sustainer, creator,
destroyer.

Nothing leads to annihilation of alllife and effort - you are
adding
human attributes to these primeval forces. The universe is
destroyed and
created endlessly - the cycle, the cycle, nothing but the cycle
(unless
you breakit of course)


|Personally I "like" the building side, as the future (in which
|I hope to be engaged) intrigues me. The concept of being
|abolished is not evocative of any "fear," but appears to me to
|be a rather dreary and self-limiting drag. It does not really
|in terms even of pessimism appear to get anywhere. Strangely
|it finds itself impelled to draw others into its intellectual
|circle, but never fully analyses anything from start to finish.

Like is an a attchment a desire - give it up - is that Hinayana?

|Yes I enjoyed the stories of Tolkien also.

I prefer Stephen Donaldsons Thomas Covenant Trilogy (Donaldson
grew up
in India - compelling if you haven't read it)

Have you ever read any Phillip K Dick?



|Best wishes,
|
|Dallas
|
|=====================


Cheers from down under

Mr Nos