Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00008)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World re ..., Dallas, etc ...


> May 2 2003
>
snip>

> Outside the realm of matter -- say in thought -- you have to have
> an objective.

Wry. First of all, thought IS matter. It is composed of material processes
AND the result is material. Until you understand this, there is no hope.

>YOU are the actuator.

Wry: "You" is the personality, especially in "your" case. Get it clear.

>You employ the brain-mind
> to seek and grasp and understand a subject that YOU CHOOSE.

Wry: Unfortunately, even sadly, this is an illusion. Like creates like. The
mechanical personality recreates itself under many guises, including that of
spirituality. Admiittedly, we need to start somewhere, so when the
personality if interested, the best approach is to actively find a method to
verify what is, in the beginning through the device of a deliberately
contrived attempt to impartially verify physical reality by pure recording,
so the incoming data is not impressed upon the previous configuration of the
personality, but goes into a different kind of storehouse (in the brain), so
to speak. Eventually, if a person acquires enough impartial data, something
can begin to form out of this. It is a real man, in the inage of "God," so
to speak, as what is impartial meets its own form here on Earth. It does not
happen by itself or by a pipe dream, sorry to say, but by a specific kind of
applied effort. If the effort is not right, everything is turned into air,
but it is only emotional and is not in the shape of a man and therefore
cannot be raised up, within the body, to transcend the flesh, so to speak.
It all about making a ship. Maybe later, someone will remember these words
and understand.

>If
> you don't do that you take it into an area of mental
> "nothingness."

Wry: Well I don't believe in focusing on any kind of point, even one between
the eyes, but in the case of this, nothing is far better than something.

> It gets confused and the eventual report you get
> revolves around that. Nothing useful is it ?

Wry: To my way of thinking, you are a person who is well meaning but really
has no idea of what he is talking about. It is heartbreaking, but some
people may be attracted to this if it is their karma.

>
> If you seek "transcendence" I say: transcendence of what? Why ?

Wry: You don't really want to know, do you? These questions seem rhetorical.

> Where do you hope to go mentally or with some desire for
> experience? Get those down clearly as a first.

Wry: Where do you? I know, as Madame Blavatsky said, if you BELIEVE (think)
that you are immortal, you will be, and therefore you BELIEVE (think) this.
Maybe it is even true, but what kind of immortal you will be (if one at
all)? It is static. This is not what BEING alive means. Perhaps it is a
form of the living dead.

>
> Otherwise it is all wishy-washy.

Wry: Maybe or maybe not, but if so, a thousand times better then making
imprints from the personality upon the personality, all the while dreaming
it is evolutionary. All true evolution is transcendent, as a lower triad is
assimilated into the next triad, by the process of refinement of coarse
material by the excretion. Everyone on here should understand this. It is
elementary. But the material of whatever does not exist on its own side.
This is key.

>
> Your suspicion that I may be totally immersed in Karma/Maya means
> what?
>
> Yes I am active and awake.
>
> I can review the passing scenes, in which I participate, or was
> merely a spectator. The one thing that emerges clearly is that:
> I AM THE ONE UNCHANGED, even if I recognize I exist in a sea of
> changes ( Maya) - If not, then I would not know the difference
> would I ?
>
> In this environment we share, I understand LAW and LAWS operate
> everywhere to keep my body and its brain alive; and, I do
> precious little about that.
>
> Physically the body handles it all.
>
> Mentally I am separate, and therefore think and desire.

Wry: The above is what I have called "eternalism," plain and simple, and I
question if the above approach is honest. When we say something about this
kind of awareness, there is an identification, it seems true at that moment,
but I doubt there is a continuity, or you would understand one of the first
and most basic laws of the spiritual universe, that of transcendence, wherin
a lower triad is assimilated into a higher triad,, forming a new triad. Plus
the "I" you speak of is expansive. It is a dream. Real I is not like this. A
person of true unity synthesises certain physical material in the body, and
such a person would understand this and approach this subject differently.
The thought (BELIEF) that one is immortal cannot be the base. It is a
formatory concept. I do not believe you understand what you call "LAWS."

>
> Usually desire motivates thought.

Wry: Yes it does.

> But then I, the consistent
> EGO, monitors where desire and thought lead. I DECIDE what I
> will do -- so do you, so does everyone. What is gained?

Wry: The above material, these last few lines, is heartbreaking, but I know
you are well meaning and this, at least is good.

>
> See if that helps

Wry: Your message has helped me to review and further clarify certain key
material. Best wishes, Wry
>
> Dal
>
> ====================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 6:51 AM
> To: Theosophy Study List; theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World re ..., Dallas, etc ...
>
> Dallas, when I wrote: <<Why do we have Yoga's,
> meditations, "just being"?>> that was meant in a
> contextual sense of: "why else do we have Yoga's,
> meditations, "just being,"
> don't understand this.
>
> Dallas, you responded with: <<To me meditation is
> concentrated thought on a selected subject.
> Nothing else.>>
>
> To me, "meditation/just being" is about transcending
> conventional (dualistic/multiplisitc, exoteric) notions
> about "concentrated thought." "Selected subject" re
> "just being" seems , as I tend to see it, kind of
> pointless, comparatively speaking. I'm hoping my
> quotes on "meditation/just being" were enough to
> suggest that some things can only be experienced
> (apparently).
>
> In my younger days I did a form of "concentrated
> thought" on a spot, with the result that the right side of
> my brain (I think it was the right side ...) felt as if it
> was churning, afterward. So I had to give up that kind
> of meditation. With "just being," though, I haven't
> had any such problems. Not that my sessions have
> been praticularly profound, but/"but" ... We all have
> to start somewhere, eh ...
>
> <<What are the things we are sure of? You can't build an
> "EMPIRE STATE BUILDING" on the sands of the
> shore, you have to have solid rock. To speculate is
> fine. But your rock in that case is yourself -- the "I"
> inside which you assume to be consistent and
> permanent regardless of the states it is in, or observes,
> or passes through. Am I right ? If everything is cloudy,
> and insecure, variable and in constant flux, then how
> can ideas or words (used to define experiences) be ever
> useful -- they would change in meaning and value
> every moment as the mind passes from subject to
> subject, object, or from question, to speculation as to
> event or its values. Are you content with bouncing
> with the fleecy clouds of imagination or are you
> seeking some base that an be defined? Some "starting
> point," or, a "point of ultimate resolution -- or an
> arrival ?" Personally floating around is unhelpful, it
> costs time and energy but seems to have little or no
> goal. How does it help you, me or any one, with living
> -- at least in this world of three dimensions (4 if you
> include "time") that appears common in general
> experience and in logic that unites us.? So I am truly
> puzzled. Dallas>>
>
> I suspect that you might be "truly puzzled" because
> you might be "truly immersed" in karma/maya.
> Presumably, at some point, your karma will allow you
> to have some kind of "aha" experience/s, so then you
> might start thinking that you might be (in a sense) less
> "truly puzzled"... Something like that? ^:-)
>
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>