Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00156)

Hi. I'm not feeling too well right now, so just some brief comments: To me,
verification is very difficult. It seems that people often choose, out of
their conditioning, what they like. I do not believe true verification of
certain metaphysical principles or laws can begin this way, but rather that
true verification must be predicated by getting a taste of pure impartial
physical reality without analysis or interpretation, and especially by
making an impartial non interpretative recording of oneself in present time.
In this way, there can be an alignment with what is, that is more exact, so
that the next movement is completely intelligent and original. I believe
this approach will cut the grease a lot faster and is much more likely to
lead to a balanced spiritual development and genuine brotherhood than
constantly intellectualizing about it, which creates an atmosphere of
confusion and dullness that is lacking in vitality. Eternity is less
complete than infinity. Something may or may not be moving, but when the
mind is still, nothing is "eternal", as there is nothing left to record this
stillness or make an observation about it, but simply impartial data and an
emanation of the whole. To me the kind of eternity you speak about seems
static. I have gotten a sense of this from the beginning when I read your
messages before I ever joined this list. When you ask real questions, I can
relate to you better. In all honesty, most of the time, I feel like you are
trying to teach, and for me, what you are saying does not ring true. I have
been an "eternalist" in my time, but not for long. Something felt wrong
about it, and I do not believe it was that I was afraid. The oscillation
frequency is off. Something can be finer and with a different edge. There is
great clarity. It has to do with the transmutation of sexual substances or
the seed.

We cannot verify whether or not we are immortal by talking about it. Unless
a person understands how a soul works, he will never mature spiritually.
This understanding comes from the recording of pure impartial data, which
data will eventually give a person a sense of certain different kinds and
qualities of material that can be consciously configured in such a way as to
contain yet another kind of deposit of a certain other material from which
eventually might form a more permanent though probably not immortal I.

You have said in another message something to the effect that you do not
understand how thoughts imprint on material since it is not material. I
believe you asked how non materials things such as thoughts and urges
imprint on the physical form. When you have such questions, rather than a
lot of formalization, I can relate to you. Has it ever occurred to you that
thought IS material, but just a finer or more subtle material? You seem to
have come to so many conclusions, all of which I cannot believe you have
verified. I am skeptical. Something or other may or may not be immortal, but
to speak of it as such is to deplete whatever chance one may have to develop
in accordance with certain laws and align with certain material, as it
serves NO FUNCTION to talk or think this way, and actually impedes the
development of the human soul, as this kind of talk imbalances the
functions. If you can think of any function it serves, let me know. I like
the concept of resonate, if it refers to the making of a complete chord, but
I personally do not go for lists of ideas and principles, as this is not how
music works. I hope this strikes some kind of chord with yoiu and others.
Maybe we can play in two keys and find a special kind of bridge to connect
them. I would like to reach the next octave without falling asleep. Is it
possible? Each time the music must be different and new. The melody line may
be the same, but the approach is always original as it is tailored to each
situation. Agreeing upon laws is not the same as enquiring. Every born again
Christian will tell you that it is a physical law that if you believe in
Jesus you will be saved. Maybe it is even true, though I doubt it, as to me
this is just another form of eternalism.Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-B-Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:41 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Is Blavatasky time-appropriate?


> Jan 9 2003
>
> Dear Friend:
>
> Baraka I understand -- the force of the PRESENCE. -- and the
> appropriate way in which a special situation is handled. And this is
> no longer apparent after time has passed. Only the words remain and
> become subject to opinion and interpretation. This is the fate of all
> creeds.
>
> As an avowed "eternalist" I look for, and to, those fundamental
> concepts that underlie or persist -- and to those I apply the term:
> LAW and Laws. Our world and universe are full of those. Some may
> consider some of the following to be metaphysics.
>
> I also call them "eternal verities." To me they provide me with the
> needed logical links that bind
> our transient "present" with the "past." The nebulous future is then
> seen to develop out of these two and the free power to choose
> exercised by every member of humanity.
>
> As far as I can determine this "past" is unalterable, although
> opinions concerning it vary greatly.
>
> I do not think we can "interfere" with any one's belief system. There
> are certain elements of any "belief system" that are true and
> UNIVERSAL and there are usually many errors and misconceptions. To
> clear these away would be beneficial to all. But it is also agree
> that this may be a very painful process. That, to me, is why
> "beliefs" are dangerous. They are something less than TRUTH.
>
> Theosophy has exposed me to some basic and universal principles -- and
> I have admittedly to modify any of my belief systems if they prove
> inaccurate and untrustworthy.
>
>
> a theosophist should not belong to any organization. Labels are
> always faulty as the individual always stands alone.
>
> If you (or I, or any one) has studied THEOSOPHY as a system, and know
> it. then we may be able to determine if all known laws and factors
> apply to a problem. No one is going, if a true "Theosopher" to accept
> blindly anything. [Theosopher = lover of Divine Truth]
>
> Verification is independent of any "label" it is an independent
> process of seeing if any statement is true and based on universal
> fundamentals. There is of course trouble deterring those. Hence in
> the SECRET DOCTRINE, Mme. H. P. Blavatsky established the ancient ones
> (see pp 14 -19 Vol. I) The system named THEOSOPHY cannot be grasped
> unless those are employed.
>
> It is by cross questioning one-another that verities and truths can be
> defined for mutual use in discussion.
>
> These are a few of the fundamentals I consider all the time:
>
> 1 SPIRIT Universal Impartite Fundamental Eternal
> Ethical Verities.
>
> 2 MATTER A Modified Aspect Of Spirit Infinitely Small Yet Is
> Inseparable From Spirit -- the theory of universal Monads -- Living
> Units, perpetually in motion. Also Eternal.
>
> 3. MIND A vehicle (or comparative position) mid-way between
> Spirit and Matter which is INTELLIGENT CONSCIOUS and is therefore
> dual : 1 Spiritual-Mind, and, 2. Material-mind. Each Monad to
> be viewed as an Eternal Pilgrim -- an intelligence wending its way
> towards complete Knowledge (or WISDOM). The Monad is free-willed, and
> always has the power to choose.
>
> 4. EVOLUTION A process of progressive experiences under
> immutable law and through re-embodiment ( reincarnation).
>
> 5. LAW universally present, so as to create an environment in
> which there is an harmony of diversities. Nothing is superfluous or
> to be left out of the scheme.
>
> 6. REINCARNATION A process of re-embodiment whereby
> intelligence, consciousness and character are perpetuated and carried
> forward.
>
> 7. CAUSE and BASIC REASON for this ? Now that is a mystery. We
> see the progress but the beginning (as also the end) are obscure.
>
> 8 GOOD is that action or choice which harmonizes with universal
> LAW. EVIL is that which breaks or distorts LAW.
>
> See if these resonate .
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dal
>
> ====================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wry
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Is Blavatsky time-appropriate?
>
> Hi Dallas. It seems you are having difficulty grasping the concept
> that every great teaching that has ever been presented to humanity is
> always presented in a way that is appropriate to the specific needs of
> specific people AT A SPECIFIC TIME. In the Middle East, the specific
> force a teaching carries to affect people is called "baraka." After a
> while all teachings lose their baraka, and with it a certain kind of
> life, as knowledge needs to be presented in different ways according
> to which knowledge has already been presented, the form in which it
> has been presented, and the manner in which people have (or have not)
> been affected by this).
>
> This is a simple enough concept to grasp and it makes perfect sense.
> The reason you may be having difficulty with this is that you are what
> I would call an eternalist. This means that you see certain aspects of
> the universe as existing externally to and independent of yourself and
> this also implies not only that you believe yourself to exist on your
> own side, as an independent entity, but also that "knowledge" exists
> independently from its own side. It is your right to believe anything
> you want, and I would not want to take this away from you. In the
> beginning I thought that you were a representative of the views of
> theosophy (as in all truth, this is how you present yourself, whether
> you will honestly acknowledge it or not), and I did not want to speak
> openly, as it is not my aim, and even against my moral principles, to
> interfere with a group of people and their belief system, but I am
> starting to understand that many theosophists have a view that is a
> little less broad or even a little more broad than your own, and that
> I may even qualify to be a theosophist myself, so I am now beginning
> to see it as maybe a duty to do my part to establish the spirit of
> genuine enquiry, and not be shy, as ultimately, this will benefit us
> all.
>
> In all truth, there is a kind of static quality to an eternalistic
> viewpoint that would contribute to the illusion that knowledge exists
> externally and eternally on its own side and that it can all be laid
> out once and for all in a form that can be given and received. The
> proof IS in the pudding, but after a while, the old pudding will
> spoil. (If you look at the pudding as life itself, life will not
> spoil, but to me, making pudding symbolizes making something active
> out of life and sharing that nourishing food with others in such a way
> that they can consciously, and not mechanically, partake.. It is
> necessary to make new pudding all the time, whether you like it or
> not. There are many different approaches to making pudding. Some
> pudding is too sweet. Some is too bitter. Some pudding is essentially
> nourishing, while other pudding is not. In my opinion, for a pudding
> to be complete, the ingredients in it need to be of the finest quality
> and also WELL-BALANCED, each ingredient in relationship to the others
> IN THE PROPER PROPORTION, but I will stop here, as maybe this analogy
> can only be carried so far,
>
> What was the aim of Madame Blavatsky when she designed her material in
> a certain configuration? I believe it was to affect human society in a
> certain way, and she has done so. If she were alive today, do she
> think she would write the same books? That is ridiculous, as she has
> already done so, and the material has been released and disseminated,
> and, as happens with all material over time, its original baraka has
> to one degree or another been greatly depleted. This is not bad or
> good, but it a natural and a law, and unless this is taken into active
> consideration, this teaching will no longer continue to exert the
> influence it was originally designed to have.
>
> You have spoken a lot about "verification," and this is somewhat
> problematic to me. I am not saying that you are necessarily doing so,
> but it is easy to give lip-service to this concept without
> understanding the nature of what verification is and how to verify in
> such a way that belief and the building of a house upon the false sand
> of ones conditioning does not enter into the picture. In order for
> verification to be scrupulous certain guidelines and conditions for
> verifying may need to be presented, not as authority, but as a helping
> model, so that we will not innocently deceive ourselves into further
> stupor. Maybe we can all work together and enquire into this subject.
> I will have more comments to make on your material, which is helping
> me to clarify my own understanding, in the future. Not necessarily
> only one person may be capable of helping to reshape theosophy in
> such a way that it can (continue to) be a powerful force and help many
> people. There may be more than one, but when we make a certain kind
> and quality of pudding, we might need to start with a kitchen that is
> clean, uncluttered and well organized, well lighted and spacious, with
> plenty of fresh air and with people who not only know how to do a
> certain task independently but are also able to come together as a
> team and do a joint project that is of SIGNIFICANT value in such a
> way that an end result that is very difficult, or even almost
> impossible to achieve, is actually accomplished. Sincerely, Wry
>
>
> CUT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>