RE: [bn-study] RE: cause and effect
Jan 14, 2004 11:29 AM
by Dallas TenBroeck
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Dear Friends and C:
To answer your query (as best I can try):
----------------------------
Also, I have a somewhat related question: I have read
within
theosophical literature that remembering things --that is
retaining,
crystallising events and storing them within ourselves
mentally or
emotionally is not so beneficial to us.
How then can we make choices without thorough remembrances
through which we perceive what is cause and effect?
-------------------------
I would say that if we add to remembrance (or memory) a tinge or quality
of emotion we may embed even more deeper that passionate or desire
quality. Usually emotion alters the accuracy or our memories.
Emotions, desires and passions are rarely logical and impersonal on
analysis. Hence the warning that old memories be suspect, and if
tinged, they ought to be abandoned.
Can you imagine the confusion we would have if we actually "remembered
our past lives" as PERSONALITIES ?
If we can impersonalize and universalize our thoughts we will be able to
offer advice that is usable in any and al circumstances by any one. It
is closer to truth and its usage.
See if this is useful and explains why the path of occultism and
chelaship (which we all have to meet and tread sometime) is so
difficult?
Best wishes,
Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Christina [mailto:christinaka@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:10 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] RE: cause and effect
Thinking and learning are great when we choose to look at everything in
the picture-whether we agree or not, understanding what we see
differently from another is the learning, isn't it?
Also, I have a somewhat related question: I have read within
theosophical literature that remembering things --that is retaining,
crystallising events and storing them within ourselves mentally or
emotionally is not so beneficial to us.
How then can we make choices without through rememberances through which
we perceive what is cause and effect?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dallas TenBroeck [mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:35 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] RE: Layman's turn!
Dec 11 2004
Re: THOUGHT AND DESIRES OR EMOTIONS
Dear Friends and C:
Basically (to me) as human, our best quality is the power of thinking,
and using logic (mental mathematics ?). But I also know from experience
that is not easy.
We have to look at events as effects -- and then, seek for the CAUSE.
Never be satisfied until we have really grasped the CAUSE. It is time
consuming and sometimes tedious, but it can be set aside for picking up
when we have time or inclination.
If you review your life and specially time spent in education, you will
find we have always been self-guided. We chose to learn or to play. As
a result we are now what we have made of ourselves in a progressive
manner.
The reason for this is, to my mind, the real cause for our existence
here and now. I think we are here to learn and not to merely amuse
ourselves, or, am I wrong?
Everything around us changes fast or slowly, but we, as a center of
perception, are stable - our memories tell us so. Our power to think
also tells us this.
If the "power to think and to learn" is not exercised and used, and if
the original impression was not deeply engraved, even our memories of
specifics can be temporarily erased from what is called the
"readily-available memory tablets." Sometimes we recover those, and at
other times we know we have had a "forgotten experience." Or, "we once
knew."
But, our emotions incline us in many directions, (and my experience has
been) they are definitely distractions and unstable. We all have them,
and they influence us, but they are not a constant part of the REAL
"WE."
I think it is very important to distinguish between the REAL "I" and our
emotions and feelings - which are only temporary (and some times consist
of) inexplicable shades and inclinations. We "feel," but essentially,
we (the thinker), I find to be the ruler and disciplinarian of the
feelings and desires.
If I were to follow my inclinations I don't think I would grow wiser, as
they are undisciplined and on retrospect (if indulged in) I find they
have wasted my time and added little to my fund of usable knowledge.
See if this is your experience. Make your own evaluation. Necessary or
not?
Best wishes,
Dallas
=============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Christina [mailto:christinaka@adelphia.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:57 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] Layman's turn!
I am certainly not a scientist- and certainly not a theologist- So that
makes me a layman-now it's my turn to attempt an explanation of why the
consensus of science/theologians is usually wide of the mark.
The scientist- factual, logical, intellectual, knowledge concrete The
theologian- faithful, compelling, devout, knowledge abstract
Perception- when one trait outweighs the other in a person, of course a
rift is formed.
A scientist has to admit, just as the theologian must, that they both
want the same answers and agree to disagree instead of one trying to
discount the other. I am certain both sides can concede to truth if
they would only trade-off and try seeing thru each other's
contrastly-shaded glasses.
On separation-- what is "fact" or "fable"?
How do any of us know? Hey 1500 years ago we KNEW the Earth was the
center of the universe, and 500 years ago we KNEW the Earth was flat and
less than 100 years ago scientists speculated that the surface of the
moon was a dusty abyss into which any manmade spacecraft would sink
without a trace...
This only proves that the more we know, the less choice we have in
action. Maybe we will scratch off yet another hypothesis from the chalk
board in a few months when we discover what goodies Spirit digs up from
the surface of Mars. [side note- anybody else find it ironic how they
named the space vehicle Spirit?!]
I say, keep it up, disciplined scientists!!! Just don't let any of that
pesky egoism get in the way of the truth.
As for Theologians-well,I can't think of anything to say but, the
one-absolute-supreme-all that we like to call GOD doesn't INTEND
ANYTHING but IS and we come no closer to truth if we just stand around
and believe it no good to make attempts to figure out why we are here
and what makes us/our universe tick...
=o)
-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [mailto:reed3@blavatsky.net]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:35 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] re: The FUSION THEORY : Is it on the endangered
species list?
Shawn,
I will respond to this one since that may be a little more gracious than
for Jerome - since it is he you have now personally attacked.
It concerns me that you have repetitively stooped to ad hominem on this
list. You did it in an early letter and now you reach a crescendo. Your
arguments would all carry more weight if you did not do that. When you
resort to ad hominem I, for one, discount your opinion. Besides, we do
not
do that on this list. On this list we criticize the facts but not the
person.
You say you would answer Jerome's question but for your assessment of
his
nature. It would be nice if you would answer the question anyway - if
you
are so inclined - but not use your assessment of Jerome's nature as a
reason for not answering.
BTW, I have a high regard for scientists. I think some of the work they
have done individually and collectively is brilliant - a real
contribution
to humanity. I also think the consensus of scientists is sometimes
wrong.
Reed
At 04:04 PM 1/9/2004 +0000, you wrote:
> >The FUSION THEORY : Is it on the endangered species list?
>NO
>
> >I wish someone on this list could prove to me that this statement is
> essentially a lie
>
>I would, but you have already chosen not to listen or look into the
>paths
>of knowledge which would help you answer this question yourself.
>
> >as I find it hard to digest that ANY WELL-KNOWN astronomer could be
> >an
> ignoramus on electricity and magnetism!!
>
>You shout from the mountain tops negatively about these people, and it
>seems science in general, as if they have hurt you in some personal
>way. All the while without even trying to spend a day in their shoes,
so
>to speak, to try to understand why they are doing things the way they
do
>them. And then to group them all together and call them
names...please,
>come now, by doing that you are making a very public statement as to
your
>temperment and mentality, and show a closed mind.
---
Distributed by Reed Carson P.O. Box 160 Windham NY 12496 USA You are
currently subscribed to bn-study as: [christinaka@adelphia.net] To
unsubscribe, forward this message to %%email.unsub%%
---
Distributed by Reed Carson P.O. Box 160 Windham NY 12496 USA You are
currently subscribed to bn-study as: [dalval14@earthlink.net] To
unsubscribe, forward this message to %%email.unsub%%
---
Distributed by Reed Carson P.O. Box 160 Windham NY 12496 USA You are
currently subscribed to bn-study as: [christinaka@adelphia.net] To
unsubscribe, forward this message to
%%email.unsub%%
---
Distributed by Reed Carson P.O. Box 160 Windham NY 12496 USA
You are currently subscribed to bn-study as: [dalval14@earthlink.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-study-7560482L@lists.lyris.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
