Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00349)

Dec 24 2003

Dear Bill:

I agree with much of what you say. I find that on needs to use broader
instead of narrower expressions or "in-pressions." We all have an
individual perspective and thus with each other may develop bifocal
vision and a greater sense of "depth." Let me say this boldly. I try
to visualize myself ( sense of identity, and sense of perception are two
things ) as an immortal ( perhaps an "atom" ?, or a sub-atom } that is
permanently "conscious." As it undergoes experience (and in-perience)
its intelligence widens and deepens.  

I think we can say this is memory that can be accessed, revised and used
for decision making. My real question is: Who or What in me makes
those decisions and thinks thoughts? Who feels emotions? Are desires
and passions true? Can we lead ourselves astray? If s, is there an
ideal path? 

Apparently (to me) our power to think is not seen to be circumscribed or
limited by physical environment or experience ? If so what limits it?

De Quatrefages' research can and is being reviewed for accuracy. It is
unpopular.. So is FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY by Cremo and Thompson.
Velikovsky, Charles Fort and Von Danegan are also unpopular -- they
signalize anomalies that remain unexplained. I have only one opinion
and that is "find out." 

Our present may be characterized as "self-ish" in so many ways, but
other experience is not always and entirely "non-self." Is it ? The
UNIVERSAL and the timeless include both the individual and limits and
measures of "time." 

Here is another slant I have been looking at:

In ancient metaphysics the ZERO (NON-SELF) gave rise to duality. But
as duality never resolves itself, it requires a tri-partite condition
where any two are contrasted and viewed by a third. [In India the
"gunas" (attributes of Deity) were three: SPIRIT, ACTIVITY, and
INERTIA -- or, "WISDOM," "KARMA" (action / reaction), and "MATTER." 

1 + 2 = 3. This is followed by 4 representing aspects of  
matter" [1. desire, 2. life-energy, 3. electro-magnetic lattice, 4.
physical substance)\

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 7 or, the six directions of SPACE plus the
central one that synthesizes them. 

Above thee they conceived of three aspects of the "non-self" --  

1.	Indescribable TOTALITY. [ or BE-NESS ]

2.	Immutable LAW [ or BECOMING ]

3.	Indefinable PERCEPTION [ CONSCIOUSNESS ]


7 + 3 = 10 [ Symbol: Pythagoras' TRIANGLE of 10 points ]

I have been trying to figure this out for a long time.

Any help?

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Meredith [mailto:bill_meredith@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 7:24 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net;
Subject:[bn-study] RE: the absolute around the world

Thank you for your comments, Dallas. I like your choice of the phrase
"It
has seemed to me....." to qualify your experiences thus far. I would
say
that it seems to me that you and I have had similar EXperiences.

I appreciate your willingness to put things into your own words here, so
I
gladly allow for the broadest meanings of words like "self" and
"universe"
so that we might continue our efforts to understand one another instead
of
straying off onto dead-end definitional tangents.

I will try to use my own words as well. Your separation of experience
into
self/not-self categories works best for me at the level of the physical
world. It fails to be descriptive in mediation and dreams. A good
exercise
might be to try and find where self ends and not-self begins. In the
physical realm it seems that our bodies are our limits. On other planes
this limit disappears. Have you experienced this for yourself?

You make a good point regarding de Quatrefages discoveries. One might
ask
if one has done the same work as de Quatrefages and come to the same
conclusions independent of de Quatrefages or whether one is willing to
accept de Quatrefages results and refer to them as facts because they
are
consistent with one's current world view? I accept his results on faith
as
being consistent with my world-view. Opinions that are inconsistent with
my
world-view must meet a far higher standard before I would call them
facts.
In other words I am quick to believe those "facts" that fit and almost
dogmatically unwilling to even entertain those "opinions" that do not
fit my
word view. Do you see yourself making similar distinctions and
judgments?

Finally, in deference to Mauri, I wish to coin my own word. INperience
is
to experience as intuition is to thinking. I don't inperience the
distinction between myself and the Universe (not-self) that you
describe.
In fact, in my inperience I cease to experience altogether. Have you
transcended
experience (self) in this way?

regards and best wishes,

Bill


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:04 AM
Subject: [bn-study] RE: the absolute around the world


Dec 23 2003

Dear Bill,

Re: the absolute around the world



I enjoyed reading your posts. They make me think.


May I ask if you have had similar experiences, such as I will give ?


It has seemed to me that there are always three things we cannot
entirely do away with:

1. "Myself" as an observer, witness, receptor, thinker, chooser.

2. The varied "Universe" all around, in and through me.

3. an enormous amount of "relationships" that bind the two of us
(the universe and I) together.


To have faith (to me) usually implies memory, reason, logic, freedom to
question, inquire further, and review, and also to reject the illogical
-- and to set aside the improbable for later consideration. But, to
also be always very attentive to what is happening in the areas we might
designate: thought, feeling and action.

In no case can I visualize myself adopting anything entirely on "blind"
faith. I see danger there. Why should I limit myself to some external
imposed or adopted parameters ( as I see is done in many religions in
the instruction of children from an early age). This is also applied to
politics and nationality. Yet these latter are continually changing.
Organized religions do not invite deep and impartial scrutiny.
Philosophies, by their inherent nature always invite examination and
revision, when they are in search of universal and impartial truth, law
and accept all facts for impartial and logical examination.

Science claims it is dedicated to discovery, measurement, and the
establishing of facts. To explain (or evolve a history of ) present
observations a number of "theories or hypotheses" are current and some
receive more "faith and belief" than others. In fact "faith and belief
" in scientific theories is usually expected of students. [ The general
belief that man's form has descended from ape bodies, is still current,
in spite of the fact that de Quatrefages proved about 140 years ago that
skeletal analysis showed the earliest ape skeletons were specializations
of the primitive human skeleton. In other words Man was primordial and
the apes were a secondary derivation. ] Questions, challenges and new
discoveries that upset older ones are usually received with a mixture of
disdain, skepticism and caution. "Authority" is widely respected. But
the fact is that the Universe which is under such examination has been
in operation for untold ages. We are newcomers, and are examining it to
discover its secret ways of working in the support of life (including
ourselves, the "new-born").

I do not expect anyone to "believe" or "to have faith" in anything I
might say or believe myself. I am sure they have their own freedom, and
together, I believe we can resolve may difficulties by mutual research,
questioning and assistance.

To endeavour to persuade or enforce "a belief" on others is
fundamentally, I am sure, an error.

But I do observe that the Universe around us is well provided with is
own laws and methods of growth. It has been doing that for our remote
ancestors and will likely continue in to the indefinite future for our
heirs and scions.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Meredith [mailto:bill_meredith@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:01 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: [bn-study] the absolute around the world

It might be injurious to dispose of faith in such an "absolute" manner.
We
often demonstrate daily a faith in "logic" and laws of nature and most
importantly we display a deep and abiding faith in our own ability to
ferret
out Truth. When we have believed what we believe long enough -- when
our
beliefs have withstood what we consider to be intense scrutiny, then we
might cast about for a new word for our beliefs. After all, those other
people have beliefs too. We may become convinced that we have Truth and
Certainty to give us comfort on our journey.

I have noted a tone of contempt that resonates when we mention "personal
Gods" and the like. Yet we hail our very own Theosophical Masters and
applaud their creative abilities as they watch over us and guide us in
our
ever developing humanity. Of course it is proper to recognized that they
are
"limited" masters who must also answer to their own chiefs. Since most
of
us on this list have never met Master Koot Hoomi, we have to take him on
faith. As for the notion that the Master resides within each of us,
that
too must be taken on faith. At least on the faith in our own abilities
to
discern the wheat from the chaff.

Trust me on this.

regards,

Bill






 

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/