Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00160)

April 28, 2003

Dear friend J:

There is in each of us an integrity: The “Ray” of the universal
Spiritual SELF.

Theosophy addresses that.

Let us consider what this may mean. You quote me:



INDEPENDENCE OF SELF

"each one of us has to become independent of the opinions and
rules of the community they live in"?


We, the moment we think, are confronted with two futures --
resulting from choices we can make:

1. of independence, (basing ourselves on universal and
impersonal moral/ethical truths; We can live and work according
to universal and impersonal verities -- treating all with
sympathy, but choosing our own course of life. It is an
independence we all have, but do not always exhibit to others.
As we may, with tact, or deceit, show them only that which they
are accustomed to accept from us as our “attitude.” If we do
that we are playing a role, and we are -- neither honest with our
true SELF, nor are we totally honest with them.. It is a kind of
hypocrisy.)

2. of dependence, (whereby -- as shown above -- we agree to
bend some of our integrity to conform with the accepted views of
those in our environment (family, co-workers, friends, etc…).
Usually this has something to do with religion, politics, and
social, racial, international, etc., attitudes, and we can
include: time we might spend on amusement, pleasant
interactions, etc… Dependence is “passivity.” It often is
submission without thinking. We can allow this to happen. And
of course we eventually pay the consequences. But, do we learn
from those consequences (accidents ?). All “politics” is
man-made -- hence fallible. All one needs t do is to carry out
to a conclusion some of the proposals suggested or used. They
are ultimately unfair and self-defeating. Test them.

Test all ready-made propositions.

Test Theosophy most carefully.


A MORAL SENSE -- VIRTUES? VICES ?

The difference between the two is the impersonal “moral” sense --
a cognizance of our built-in appreciation and use of the
touchstone of impersonal and impartial VIRTUE. We ought to have
a list of these if our memory fails. We ought to take time to
consider a choice before jumping into any new position rashly. If
we are rash, we are allowing old habits to rule us, instead of
our ruling the old habits and analysing them, so as to adopt the
acting now criteria, for the best possible future consequences.
We have here to adopt the idea that we live in a Universe of Law
that cannot be bent, broken or escaped from. It is all-pervasive,
and watches everything that everybody thinks, feels, says, and
does. No exceptions. No “escape-hatch.”

In effect, in the scenario above, we have a mental tribunal at
which the two antagonists plead their case before the impartial,
immortal HIGHER SELF that resides within, and is the one that
convenes such a “court.” The true “WE” in us is that HIGHER SELF.
It is the uncertain lower mind-self that (sensing danger) asks
for its consideration. But also, recall that all the facts have
to be clearly placed before this Spiritual Judge if one expect a
clear universal, and unprejudiced answer. In presenting them,
often, their fallacies are uncovered. Honesty has to rule all
the time.

Note that in adopting “2 “ we are in fact abridging, modifying
and distorting “1” to some extent -- since “1” can never be
totally overlooked or trashed, it always survives and speaks to
us (even when suppressed) as the murmurings of the “Voice of
Conscience.”

“Passivity” is a form of resistance from our adopted habits, now
built into our character, which by inertia resist changes, or
present desired changes and “improvements.” If we see the need
for these changes -- to be truly OURSELVES -- then the mask of
habit we are in our personality (or Lower embodied Mind) resists
this change.

Once we recognize its presence and its resistance we are ”ahead
of the game” -- if our aim is to become Spiritually Wise and
Exact. This is not “out-guessing.” We have, from our present
position as “embodied Minds,” to make absolutely sure that there
is an impersonal, ideal and spiritual way of doing things, and
then make our personalities do that. If there is any element of
selfishness, or of personal gain in any proposed choice or
decision, to that extent it will turn out “wrong” in the long
run. The reason for that is: no “form of any kind of substance
or matter” can ever represent the WHOLE exactly. There is the
ONE ONLY ONE that is the ABSOLUTE background to all. This is the
EVER-UNKNOWN. Intellectually we can grasp this idea. We do so
because we are an integral part of IT.

The “spiritual” is always “for the long run.” The “personal” is
for some short-term amusement or pleasure of this personality.
The “spiritual” considers itself as a necessary part of the whole
environment, the “personal” considers only its self. And it
hopes the repercussions of choices made within that limit, will
be small and perhaps that it can evade them. If you look within
and at the interplay that goes on, so quickly in our own lower
Mind and psyche (desire nature), you will see this working.

“Attention” is a faculty we need to encourage as it wakes up
areas of the mind that we have permitted to become dormant. One
of these is the sharp and keen moral sense. It also serves to
control the “psyche” by exposing its motives to the active Mind
of the chooser (You) -- so that you can secure a better preview
of the potential future. Is it truly to our (and the psyche’s)
long-term benefit? Not “concerted” but “CONCENTRATED” attention
was recommended. It takes an effort of the WILL to keep the Mind
focused [see PATANJALI'S YOGA SUTRAS].


ACCIDENT

You are right( as I see it) in a Universe of true compensatory
LAW, there are no accidents. Everything is KARMA -- the ONE LAW
in action. It is KARMA that brings about the manifestations of
the Universe. It is an integral aspect of the ABSOLUTE.

When manifestation begins and emerges from the great sleep of the
UNIVERSE, the law awakes the UNIVERSAL MIND. In it are stored
all the plans and memories of the past series of evolutions.
Those are made to unfold, and a new birth of the Kosmos begins.
It is similar to reincarnation for humans.

In fact the use of the word “accident” ought to go -- it was
created by those who desire that you and I, members of mankind,
NOT THINK about their true situation: as immortals in a universe
of progressive education where the object is to be become ALL
WISE.

Every time a human mind escapes from the bond of imposed
ignorance, to that extent the repressive elements that desire to
make men’s mind their un-thinking slaves lose one of their
victims. Ask yourself how often in early education have children
been asked NOT TO THINK but to obey BLINDLY, because I TELL YOU ?
Is that fair to an immortal, a growing intellect? Does thinking
get taught that way ?

By the way, everything here has to be most carefully thought over
by you to see if is really helpful. I can only tell you of my
own experience and thinking, and that is not “universal.”

See if this is of help,

Best wishes,

Dal

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



-----Original Message-----

From: J

Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 7:07 AM
To: dalval14@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: RELIGIONS RECONCILED

Dear Friend D.:

Thank you for your correspondance yesterday. I did not reply as
I was busy digesting. I realize that my "accident" was not
accidental at all and served more as the culmination of a series
of month-long events whose entropy finally spilled over into the
event of the crash. "Accident" is a funny word applied anywhere
in life, isn't it, for at all times we are reaping what we sow.
Non-causal, (from one's perspecive) is a little more accurate,
but even this implies that the 'one' has not looked deep enough
to see the causality. In essence, there are no accidents then,
and knowing this we are better equipped to be responsible for and
to appreciate all matters of course and event in our lives.

Thank you for your explanation on passivity. I am still riddled
with this fatigue of the mind and desire greatly to overcome it.
Is concerted attention the only requisite for combatting this
reticence, or is it also to do with the strength of one's
integrity? Even in asking, I think I have found the answer.

By what manner do you say that "each one of us has to become
independent of the opinions and rules of the community they live
in"? Are you speaking to mean that if we try and outguess the
expectations of our community-at-large then we will always be
playing from behind and that the only way to take the lead (using
sports analogies here, as I have been a soccer player my whole
life practically) is if we dismiss the echoes of what we think
people will think?

I take it that you do not mean literally, that we disregard the
political systems of our community. In fact, I know you do not
mean this.

Thank you again for your guidance.

J




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