Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00092)

December 7, 2001


Dear G M

I try to put out that which Theosophy teaches. The ‘theosophical use’ of a
word may not necessarily be the same as that commonly ascribed to it.

The main thing to realize is that NATURE As A WHOLE is infinitely
responsible to every one of its components. It therefore seeks to enable
them to grow in intelligence all the time and protects the from forcible
piracy by selfish “tyrants.” By that I mean the callous disregard of the
rights and privileges of the least of beings, which the ”strong and
powerful” believe they can over-run as they please.

But if one takes the UNIVERSALITY OF SPIRIT, the prevalence of ETHICAL AND
MORAL LAWS, and the UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE OF ALL LIVING THINGS TO BECOME WISE
AND PERFECT, then the BROTHERHOOD of the Whole Universe may be grasped as a
practical situation. The odd thing about our present view of living is that
we deny such a condition, and prefer the constant insecurity and battle of
minor selfish desires and personal passions against the overwhelming
processes and facts of universality and eternity.

We rely on the impartiality and the benevolence of Nature to keep our
present bodies and other instruments (vitality, emotional nature,
intellectual being, and potential acquisition of WISDOM) alive and well. We
are in effect only tenants in these “bodies” and show little inclination to
learn how we acquired them, or what our symbiosis implies. We are no
actually very sure of what “WE” are. We speak of the mind and we speakof
the soul, but are they our tools or are them ?

An attempt to organize our knowledge and sharpen our powers of observation
seems advisable.

But in general we have allowed as sense of as and the desire to preserve
“happiness” lull us into inertia and disinterest in finding the actual
source and cause of our being ALIVE.

Of course these are my personal views. They are optimistic and not
pessimistic, because they are based on the concept that nature is a constant
stimulus and will eventually cause us to adopt these methods. I would
rather be “ahead of the game,” than compelled to enter it ignorant and
panting.

As to these words “gods” they to me, indicate a certain degree of wisdom and
responsibility. To an “atom” at its level of consciousness we would appear
to be “god.” To us, a Buddha, or a Christ appears to be a “God.” It i all
a matter of degree as the “atom” the “man” and the “God” are all basically
MONADS consisting of the 3 spiritual principles ATMA, BUDDHI, and Manas --
or SPIRITUAL PERFECTION, WISDOM, and the Power of THINKING and
INDEPENDENCE.

If one has time some of these references ought to be read and contrasted.
Using the INDEX to The SECRET DOCTRINE is also of help. It is better to do
that work ones’ self, rather than depend on another’s views and collations.

All depends on the qualities ascribed to “gods.” [ see S D I 3fn, 292,
412, 499fn, 636, ; II 239, 472, 555, 584,

For instance the ancient Hindus used the word DEVA (god) to indicate a
certain type of consciousness) [See SECRET DOCTRINE II 90, 172, 307,
373fn, 458, ; S D I , 93, 211, 459, 619, ]

SECRET DOCTRINE is available “on-line” through http://www.blavatsky.netif
you don’t have it.

Best wishes,



Dal

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


-----Original Message-----
From: G M
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:33 PM
To:
Subject: [bn-study] RE: Karma an important Law of Nature

In a message dated 12/4/01 3:08:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dalval14@earthlink.net writes:

Dear Dallas...

I thought in theosopy there was/is no god(s)?

M.G.

Dallas said"


(5) Karma operates on all things and beings from the minutest
conceivable atom to Brahma. Proceeding in the three worlds men,
gods, and the elemental beings, no spot in the manifested
universe is exempt from its sway.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]