Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00160)

Jan 10 2003

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your candor. I do not aim to teach.

I aim to present some Theosophical tenets and basic ideas before you,
and others, for consideration.

I recognize there are many points of view, but basically there are
two: One of the spiritual continuum, which includes us all. and 2,
of the personality which in its isolation tries to secrete and store
anything it secures of information. Since its basis is this one life,
everything is viewed from that stand point.

My question (to myself and others) has always been: is the second
true?

One factor I do recognize is that I do have "likes and dislikes." But
they do not rule me. I rule them. They are only feelings and without
the cooperation of the mind they have no tenure.

As a mind-man I therefore determine the validity of any "feeling."

I cannot determine if eternity and infinity are synchronous. Bot
indicate illimitability in terms of time, space, substance and energy.
Since everything else has a set of limitations within illimitability I
would say it has a finitude -- a determinable beginning and end.

Oscillation or motion in the abstract appears to be of many
magnitudes, but if one desires to admit this then one can only say
that LAW rules -- the alternative is CHAOS -- and the presence of
self-consciousness would appear to nullify this latter state.

The source or causation of self-consciousness is something I cannot
secure. Yet I am.

What I asked previously is about the way in which nonmaterial
(energic) thoughts could affect or imprint themselves as actions on
matter. How do my choices work into actual controlled actions.

I most certainly agree with you. There probably is "mind-matter,"
image-formed by thought. Our desires and feelings likewise probably
have a form of substance of their own, and according to theosophy both
mind and feeling images are imprinted on a portion of the continuum
called the "astral light" (or AKASA) -- from which they can be
recalled for review.

Somehow the "faith" of any one is limited or motivated by the desire
for some benefit that is personal. If there is a general, a
universal, an impartial desire for "good to all," then the generosity
of such a feeling ought to be conceivable and understandable. For the
first kind there are limits, and for the second, there is only a
continued hope -- but isn't it a grand one?

As usual the main question for us is: What is true? What has
persistence? In the long run what will emerge ? Is there a
relationship between that which is called spiritual and ethics?

Thanks and best wishes, and feel better.

Dal

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




-----Original Message-----
From: wry
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 11:45 PM
To:
Subject: Is Blavatsky time-appropriate?

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 you 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

CUT