Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00119)

Sunday, May 11, 2003

Dear Bart:

The start, as I see it, is with the "Three Fundamentals of
THEOSOPHY."

The universality that is implicit in "DEITY, LAW , and
progressive SOUL-EVOLUTION, gives all living beings that ALREADY
EXIST as MONADS an even chance to progress. The alternative is an
all-devouring selfishness based on a single life-time. But we
find this is relived by its contrasts: generosity, compassion,
mercy, justice, and also, to show how universal these concepts
are: all our written laws all over the world, seem modeled on
this kind of idealism, as a superior concept.

Should we wonder why?

Has anything been written of a cohesive nature that links these
ideals together in a wholly well networked, rational frame? Or
are these the expression of the "Heart" doctrine innate to all
mankind, which thus find their expression everywhere?

I believe I understand what Theosophy is trying to say when it
divides the "Mind" into Lower and Higher Manas. It seems to be an
important starting point and one which we can see in our selves,
as WE transcend the Mind and can use it as a tool, directing it
to examine matters that WE choose, as subjects for its
investigation.

And of the "lower Mind" it says it is self-defined by its having
to use the physical brain in a purely physical environment --
this makes it "selfish." It also tends to make it believe that
this one life now known is the only one where it will find
expression. This has the tendency to make it vicious and hence
lower-self focused. The "desires and passions," which are
irrational urges, assist in this. That irrationality is
attractive. But it is illusive and delusive, as it is
terminable. If it terminates, then all the effort we put into it
is lost. Is it worth that ?

The Lower Mind is self-protective, and inasmuch as "virtue" is
considered the ideal, as well as the practical norm of human and
other living -- co-existence -- it hides and shields itself from
public exposure - and all its limitations that it knows so well,
hypocritically with pretended virtue. Thus the thief and the
liar pretend to be models of probity, honesty and truthfulness.

The "Higher Mind" is defined as the universal and unselfish,
brotherly mind. This tends to make its life and responses
impersonal and virtuous, as it transcends the limited lower-self
and expands into a concept that includes itself and others. By
its very existence it enrages the "Lower Mind." And as a result
we have the horrors and confusions of a civilization such as we
witness, world-wide, today.

That is how I understand and apply it and also try to write about
it. Add to this the concept of immortality for this Higher Ego
and you have Karma and Reincarnation as the doctrines of hope,
progress , and cooperative living. It is the Real We that always
survives and moves ever forward on the wave front of
self-discovery.

This model may not appeal to all, why, I don't know. it hurts no
one.

We all labor under this onus. However, the moment we envisage
the virtues - which are universal and impersonal -- we seem to
develop a new perspective, using the "Lower Mind," which we
cannot fully escape from. If we adopt them, whether we are under
others' scrutiny or not, a change in our life occurs.

All this exchange seems to be along the lines of the Mahatmas'
injunctions: Trying to find a way of expressing it ever clearer,
and with examples that relate to our common experience in daily
life.

Are the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) and the OCEAN OF Theosophy
(Judge) so difficult to understand?

Does not the VOICE OF THE SILENCE continually refer to the
difference between the "Eye" and the "Heart" doctrines? One
wonders why.

It is my belief that the PRIMARY exposition of Theosophy will
continue to be the point of reference for anyone who desires to
assure themselves of the history and the data of aeons of
research from the past -- recoded as in The SECRET DOCTRINE for
all by the Mahatmas and H P B. (S D I 272-3) . There is a
certain confidence given when one realizes that these doctrines
and this history of research and work has been around, UNCHANGED
for many thousands of years. The, one wonders why such large
efforts have been made to obliterate traces of them over the past
20 centuries?

Why should any one obstruct or discourage access or usage of
those basics? I cannot understand that.

The insularity of the present incarnation cuts us off frequently,
from other contemporary nations using different languages, if in
English, we appreciate 16th century Shakespeare, we can equally
appreciate 19th century Blavatsky -- for philosophy and a fine
critique of the Sciences and Theologies. To be able to criticize
Theosophy, I would say we ought to know it well -- or at least
its fundamentals. Are there any valid alternatives? Where are
they?

I say this, not to you, but to all of us, and especially to
myself. There is so much I do not know and am learning every
day.

And I would add that every contribution we make in modern terms
among ourselves, increases the likelihood of appreciation of the
ancient expressions. These, like mathematics, engineering,
physics, chemistry, biology, and science are used and reused, and
no one bothers about their antiquity, or their dates of more
modern discovery. In any case, they are continually proved to be
useful and exact by generations of students who learn them as
theory, and in the next moment can test and practice them in the
thousands of laboratories now all over the earth.

We need the same kind of labs for the Mind, the emotions, the
practice of virtue and the analysis of motives that distinguishes
them from vice. Theosophy is just the beginning. Its concepts
are already under scrutiny in dozens of psychological labs all
around the world, and many practitioners use them, perhaps
without giving them credit.

As I see it, it is the same with Theosophy -- we are putting it
into the lab of the Minds of readers and students. Getting to
think of its expressions, of the concept of soul-immortality and
the enormous pilgrimage for all of us to perfection -- with no
"death" (any more than sleep interrupts) to terminate or to
interrupt that Soul/Mind progress, that is valuable to ourselves,
and from us, to all. No wonder that old Hermes said: "Man, know
thyself."

I don't know if you will agree or accept what I offer, but
perhaps our area of exchange will develop more points of
agreement than otherwise.

Now I think this is important, and you seem to reflect it in what
you write: I always think it is better to be dynamic, and move
into the future with greater assurance than spend time on the
past which is irretrievably immobile -- and always questionable.
It cannot be altered. However it is a fact that it was one of
the "stating points," or it marks a "point of passage," back
then. Hopefully by "now" we are ahead of those landmarks.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Bart L
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 9:40 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [bn-study] A boundless God

Dallas TenBroeck wrote:


> As I understand it, behind the concept of UNITY is the
> unknown --hence, cannot be defined. Hence ""unthinkable and
> unspeakable".

The statement, as given, is not reasonable (which doesn't mean it
isn't
true; it's missing a couple of important points, and uses the
wrong
bases to draw the conclusion). Many things that are unknown can
be
defined (for example, a black hole), and many things that are
undeniable
are known (such as love). There is a reason why the concept of
UNITY is
unknowable and undeniable; simply put, any attempt to define it
creates
a state of part of UNITY and not part of UNITY, but since not
part of
UNITY is impossible, then it cannot be defined. Similarly, an
attempt to
comprehend UNITY puts the comprehender outside of it, which
violates the
concept, making it unknowable.

The problem with the words "unthinkable" and "unspeakable" is in
the
difference between "cannot" and "may not". While,
lexicographically,
"unthinkable" and "unspeakable" imply "cannot", in popular usage,
they
imply "may not". Using those terms, therefore, implies a
religious
restriction that simply doesn't exist. The Mahatmas pointed out
that
truth should be expressed to people in terminology with which
they are
familiar. This unfortunately means that, as time goes on, the
Primary
Literature will become less and less relevant, not because of
faults
with the concepts, but because changes in language will change
the
concepts, as read.

Bart L