Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00184)

Tuesday, April 16, 2002


Dear Jerry,


Again I think it is matter of terms. I try to present what
Theosophy offers as concepts.

Let me put some answers or comments below in the text of your
answer.

Thanks

Dal

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


-----Original Message-----
From: g s
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re to Dallas



DTB
<<<Dear Friends:
As far as I can see if one reads the original Theosophical
Literature and studies the SECRET DOCTRINE one is convinced that
we are not dealing with some new hazy myth at all.>>>

----------------------------------

GS
Dallas, myth - in the sense that I use it - is not "hazy." I use
it in the Jungian sense, as a finger pointing to something, as
colorful clothing over something very real, as signs and symbols
of archetypal truths, as a useful and workable model.

----------------------

DTB	UNDERSTOOD Jung had great insight and intuition. He tried
to change the course of psychology, and give it greater depth, as
I understand him and his writings.

--------------------


DTB
<<<Since the days of H P B's departure there have been students
who were uncomfortable with the broad vistas which the Masters Of
Wisdom depicted -- millions and millions of years and the
immortality of Man's Mind/Soul.>>>

----------------------------------

GS
"Broad vistas" do not make me uncomfortable. However, since man's
"mind/soul" constantly changes over time, it can not be said to
be "immortal." When you label the human soul as "immortal" then I
do become uncomfortable.

------------------------------------


DTB THEOSOPHY, as I understand it to teach, considers the
Soul/Mind a unit that draws together the two polar opposites of
SPIRIT (or Wisdom universal) and MATTER (or the many mayavic
forms of limited knowledge -- ignorance (?) -- because not
entirely correlated or synthesized). This creates two view
points:

1. Of a continuous record of experience -- WISDOM UNIVERSAL, and

2. limited experience of this life as memory and the present
brain records and constructs.


In Theosophy we have BUDDHI (the 2nd principle) as the
accumulated wisdom of the ages impacted in PRIMORDIAL and
IMPERISHABLE SUBSTANCE -- so that, paired with ATMA the universal
Spirit, in the immortal MONAD, it can embody, and also reflect
it.

But although Atma and Buddhi are the polar opposites in the "Egg
of Brahma" -- the limit set by Karma to any one Universe or
period of manifestation, they are not isolated. As I see it
MANAS or the Mind (soul) links them and every least nuance of
their interaction becomes a subject for MANAS to consider and
seek to understand the forces that are implicit in every CHANGE.
It is therefore MANAS ( acting as Mahat on the Kosmic plane that
is responsible for drawing up the general plans for a new
Manvantara. In MAHAT are the MANASA -- Being of Mind fully
developed: Mahatmas, Dhyanis, Rishis Buddhas etc...) whose
respective duties are to oversee the implementation and
development of this PLAN -- the 1st Vol. of The SECRET DOCTRINE
depicts the methods used, and the concept of the Universe, and of
every planet, our Earth included, being a school for the
development of more of the MANASA -- we are those, the Manasa in
embryo, now breaking out of the shell of ignorance and gradually
unfolding the wings of mental comprehension which lead us to the
light of WISDOM COMPLETE. This has bee called by someone: the
GOAL OF SUBLIME PERFECTION.

Next comes, as a "principle," MANAS the "Mind," which is
actually as H P B says in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) triple.

1. There is Buddhi-Manas, discrimination and altruistic
idealism.

2. There is the faculty of reasoning and cold, pure logic or
MANAS per se. And

3rd, there is Kama-Manas or that aspect of the Mind which is
linked to KAMA the principle of desires, needs, wants and
passions -- the root of the personal man that feels and is beset
during life with, on one hand, pain and sorrow, and on the other,
pleasure and enjoyment of a personal kind.-- selfishness.

By itself the KAMA (the 4th principle) is unable to plan or
formulate a procedure. It is impulsive and chaotic in action,
and, for it the future does not exist. It lives in, and for, the
present. It needs the mental capacity of reasoning to bolster its
ambitions. Virtue is associated with the calm pure reasoning of
Buddhi-manas. Vice is associated with the selfish plans and
devious, dark inclinations of Kama-manas. Since there is a
fundamental Plan of evolution, Nature (the UNIVERSE) has
infinitely sensitive laws that regulate all aspects of
development and therefore all relations between the uncountable
beings are for their individual as well as mutual benefit. If we
as humans voluntarily assist those laws we are virtuous. If we
break or degrade, then we are vicious in that regard.

Mankind, viewed Theosophically is a compound of material
substance (monads of lesser experience,) sometimes call "little
lives," or "skandhas." If, in the Kosmic MONAD, Buddhi is
PRIMORDIAL PERFECTED MATTER, then in every one of the countless
human beings, their physical and emotional self are aspects of
MATTER which develops in conjunction with this mind or Manas.

As I see it, our modern psychological concepts reject the idea of
soul immortality -- but they cannot account for the differences
of character, nor can they ascribe a "goal" for personal
evolution other than the longest possible survival of individual
memory and intelligence -- located only in the present form of
man -- so family heredity is invoked for lack of anything
definite. As to the transmission of the experience and knowledge
acquired by any one person, this is not deemed a necessary
consideration by them.

>From the materialistic view-point this is of course the best way
out of the dilemma. I might characterize it as 1. Born
ignorant; 2. pass through many experiences; and 3. Die with
no reasonable future for all the fuss and bother of a life-time.
Sounds a bit rough, but is there anything that could be added ?
Cause? Purpose ? That is not under examination, and is
considered at best "wishful-thinking, and fancy.

Problem is that most myths, legends, and the lore of many peoples
inconveniently invoke the supposed or actual immortality of
Spirit (usually undefined) but considered to be the HIGHEST
POSSIBLE EXCELLENCE. And, Soul -- also generally undefined, but
thought of and viewed as, possibly, a compound of impersonal
thought and personal desires, passions and urges. These being
strong and demanding, are considered to be evidence of our
present human intelligence, and form the subject for examination
in their relation to physical inductions and reactions, usually
in terms of pleasure and pain.

----------------------------------

DTB
<<<Also the idea that SPACE, or the ABSOLUTE as a concept of
limitless and timeless actuality -- in which everything lives and
bathes -- has thoroughly upset the narrow confines of the Church
teachings of the middle ages which were designed to obscure and
if possible obliterate or, destroy, any sense of logic relating
to the teachings of the antique nations.>>>


GS
You are quite right, Dallas, to call the Absolute a "concept"
because that is exactly what it is. There is no Absolute as an
objective "thing" existing somewhere. It exists in our minds as a
concept and only has meaning to us when we compare it to the
concept of Relative.


DTB
Agreed. The ABSOLUTE is said to be out of any relation with the
limited or material. It cannot be defined in terms of our
multi-dimensional substance or matter. But what is a "mental
concept?" I think we will find it is subjective and probably it
assumes the nature of the individual that generates and uses it.
I think there are at least two kinds: 1. those related to
physical limits, and 2. those that cannot be related to any
limits -- could these be metaphysical abstractions ?

----------------------------


DTB (Church)
<<<Their objective has always been two-fold: 1. to belittle
man's dignity as a SPIRIT/SOUL. And, 2. To destroy any vestige
of Pan-Sophia -- the universal Wisdom Religion of antiquity. Pan
means Nature (or the universe) and Sophia means wisdom. Theosophy
(SECRET DOCTRINE I 272-3 declares that there >>>


GS
OK, but I am in no position myself to determine the "objectives"
of any Church.



DTB
<<<Because of this, the structure of those ancient teachings has
been truncated and destroyed as a reliable reference point to our
past history. Libraries, monuments, temples, carvings
astronomical markings and other indices of the past had to be
altered, or disfigured past reconstruction. The foreshortened
biblical chronology of the Jewish scriptures had to shorn of it
allegorical nature and by using literalism man's evolution and
that of the universe has been dwarfed.>>>

OK

<<<Once that the sequential nature and the ubiquity of those
ancient teachings is broken they can be safely called fairy
tales, myths, and childish dreams of an infant humanity -- and
also can be encompassed in a few offhand phrases -- and the
believing world will return to ignorance. >>>


GS
Again, when I say that SD is a myth, I do not mean "infantile" or
"childish" at all. A myth is an esoteric/ineffable idea put into
words in order to be understood by manas and communicated to
others.


DTB	i LIKE THAT DEFINITION. But I would be careful using it as
it is unusual.



DTB
<<<H P B in writing ISIS UNVEILED brought this to a stop since
any one can read and learn that the traces of the Universal
Wisdom are there and can be found and checked.>>>


GS
If "any one can read and learn" then I have to wonder why so few
people in the world are Theosophists? Why do people like Briggite
and Paul not see the "Universal Wisdom" there, that you seem to
see?


DTB	People create their own agendas. It is a matter or
reincarnation and karma. Each individual has the same proportion
of knowledge and ignorance when they started as MONADS their
adventure and pilgrimage through the opportunities offered by the
stage of "humanity". One has to take the position of Theosophy
as probably correct, (I have tried to describe the intellectual
and emotional mix above in terms (abstractly) of the Theosophical
"Principles".)

If we are to account for the way in which we conduct our lives
(by our choices) and the moral standards we have adopted, others
likewise have to account to themselves (not to us) for their
inclinations. Each of us has innately the supreme power of the
will. Are we going to use it to elevate our world and ourselves
incidentally, or are we going to debase it (and ourselves) into
areas of greater confusion and ignorance. The Paths are TWO. We
advance in life, in stature, in karmic value to humanity (and to
ourselves) solely dependent on our uninfluenced choices. We
cannot blame others.

It is not possible to hold an inquisition, or demand that people
account for their ways and conclusions. The ultimate proof of
that which is preferable, or ideal, is what happens abstractly to
any one who might employ the criteria offered by them. As to
them, personally, as Egos in their pilgrimage - as it will for
ourselves, I would say it is advisable to discover if there are
any true and valuable moral/ethical standards that all would
agree to as EXCELLENCE. When found they ought to be applied. In
the ultimate accounting, there is no place for concealment, or
misrepresentation.

If we could mentally construct the ideal man or woman, (not as a
physical form, but as a moral being) what criteria would we
adduce? How would we agree on criteria for : Wisdom,
Knowledge, Emotions, Vitality, and, then only what kind of an
astral and a physical form would we place it in ?

What would a Buddha, or a Dhyan Chohan, or a Rishi, or a
Pythagoras, Plato, Jesus, Lao Tse, Krishna, etc., etc... look
like? I do not mean superficially, but I do mean as a spiritual
being?

Does the physical appearance inevitably display clearly the mind
and Moral stature of the individual using it ? It is for this
reason that one can only say: read what they write. Their
nature becomes obvious.

Take those writings, Cross check and verify them for accuracy.
Place them, in the crucible of universal ideals, if we have
reliable access to them. And in doing this discount all our own
peculiarities and biases in the most rigorous way possible -- so
that we may view the nature of what an individual presents in
terms of its continuing and ultimate FUTURE WORTH. I usually ask
if what one reads or says, or writes is going to be valid 10,
100, 1,000 or 10,000 years from now. And try to write or speak
with that impartiality and impersonality in view. In the cases
you mention there is ample opportunity to do this by simply going
to the reference spots they indicate they chose and see for
ourselves if they are/were accurate reporters.

------------------------------------------------


DTB
<<<This is one of the most interesting books ever written. It
was a "best-seller" and after 18 printings the original plates
were worn out. It continues to being demand. Best wishes,
Dallas>>>



GS
I still like the last chapt and the appended articles best. But
it was a valiant attempt to stem the tide of materialism and
scientific egotism that florished during the last part of the
19th century. No small part of that scientific egotism was caused
by what today is known as LaPlacian thinking.


DTB	Modernism and the "post-Modern" thought so commonly spoken
of, are masks for a continuation of the great stream of thinking
that denotes and marks the stature of human thought.
regardless of the labeling that attract and distract attention,
H P B has, in her books and articles, in every clime and in
every tradition pointed to the existence of two general Paths of
living, or knowledge and of choice that confront every member of
humanity without exception -- not as group, but individually.

The concept of our Earth as a vast SCHOOL, and each member of
humanity as an immortal pupil has a certain appeal -- a nobility
of prospect. It states we are all equals and our course of
advance, individually, is self determined. It speaks of Nature
as an infinitely supportive environment which reacts to the
smallest choice we make in any direction. What can be more free
of influence? what can be better for a free soul/mind to live
in? Yet if we review history we find that there are individuals
and groups that would conceal and hide this fact from the
majority of mankind. One needs to ask why.

I do not have all the answers, but this appeals as a possibility,
as a potential, as a freedom of support that welcomes any attempt
I and others might make to become better than we are at present.
Is this presuming too much?

Best wishes as always,

Dallas


Jerry S.

---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net