Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00064)

March 8 2004

Dear Z:

Chaos and Harmony are antipodal as concepts. However I would say that
"chaos" relates to only a fragment of the WHOLE.

HARMONY relates to the TOTAL OF EXPERIENCE and includes all temporary
fragments --- hence Buddhist philosophy considers our phenomenal present
(matter as a phenomenon of the subtle life-giving "ASTRAL level" -- (see
S D II 109-10, top) an illusion. 

However, again, the causes for each level of illusion ought to be
investigated. This implies that the investigating power is not subject
to "chaos" time, space or 'motion.' It is of the universal primary
"spiritual" base. 

>From the beginning of the SECRET DOCTRINE the concept of the
universality of the monadic system as a reality is posited. Each of
these imponderable entities is, as a unit, a "son" of the original and
universal DIVINE ONE SOURCE. Named in Hindu philosophy ."Parabrahm." 

"Probable realities" are mental hypotheses and theories evolved on such
data as we have discovered. If our measurements are inaccurate, it is
highly liable that our deductions are inaccurate also. The two are
inter-related. 

The "power to choose": implies independence. As a unitary faculty, it
is also available tall units. Any one deduction is of necessity related
to the WHOLE, and, each MONAD (an individual eternal intelligence) is
on its own course towards an ever-refined grasp of the operations and
reality of the WHOLE. Being accompanied by its correlates (or brothers
one might say) its independence is limited by its environment to some
extent. But time for it is not a limiting factor, such as our lives in
these present bodies of ours is. 

Our Science, in its efforts to probe matter, and the causes of matter is
an example of this root, ineradicable motive. I would add that "Matter"
is already harmoniously established in the UNIVERSE, and our scientific
efforts demonstrate this as it probes along.

This is a part of what I have learned from THEOSOPHY and its
metaphysical considerations.

I hope this proves helpful.

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Z
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:43 PM
To: Study@blavatsky.net
Subject: Re: Request for comments

-----------------

Dallas,

I see the sense in what you have presented and it is understood. 


I have two questions that I would ask. 


The first query involves karma as a word to indicate the harmony in the
universe. Does that which is considered chaos inclusive in the use of
the term harmony, or separate? 

The second question is an offshoot thought in regards to choice and
events. How do you perceive that which is regarded as "probable
realities" and if probable realities are seen to be in existence, how
would it tie in to choice and events?

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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:49 PM
Subject: [bn-study] Re: Request for comments


> March 5 2004
>
> Re Comment? -- What is the purpose for our Universe and
> ourselves?
>
> Dear Z:
>
> This is not easy and involves some philosophizing. See if this
> makes
> sense to you.
>
> Karma to me, is a word used to indicate the harmony of the
> universe in
> its living Self. It springs from an untold past, exists now,
> and ever
> posses forward into an unforeseeable future. Unforeseeable?
> Because
> fresh choices, mine and others determine that course.
>
> I am, in my esteem, (as an essentially spiritual being) only
> spending a
> "day" in this succession of many life-times of renewed
> experiences, and
> have vital links, in terms of memory and capacity, to talents
> developed
> in my past lives.
>
> I do not recall them in detail, (some speak of these experiences
> and
> have offered proofs; NDE experiences also offer a quantum of
> 'proof')
> as the material assembled for this present brain was then absent
> in its
> present conformity, but the talents or their lack in my present
> personality gives me evidence of their having been developed. I
> see in
> myself a bifurcation of consciousness. One is stable and seems
> permanent -- the sense of SELF. And the other -- a varying
> quantity,
> concerned chiefly with the experiences of this life-time. So, in
> any
> discussion, these two ought to be figured as present.
>
> Let us first look around us at our law, and our world full of
> regulations for fairness in communal living -- regardless of
> politics,
> personal opinions, or religions. What seem to be general
> principles? I
> will try an show how KARMA seems to me to be in operation, and
> the
> impact of our present thinking about it has on ourselves, and on
> others.
>
>
> Would not a correlation (and comparison) of constitutions and
> enacted
> Laws, taken from the major countries of the world show that what
> we
> call vaguely "virtue" seem to be the common basis for all laws?
>
> Fairness, sincerity, honesty, diligence, concern, mercy,
> compassion,
> brotherhood, charity, love, friendliness, regard for individual
> integrity, the fair right to hold and use property, etc... are
> all
> involved in this panorama of communal living.
>
> Further, no political, personal, or religious dogmas, regulations
> or
> rules that lead to separatism and selfishness, or to special
> assumed
> response or regard by a "God," or a "Supreme Power," may be
> permitted or
> considered as mitigating the reason for any unfair treatment
> meted to
> anyone.
>
> I recall that the UN many years ago passed a general statement on
> human
> rights. It included such ideas and excluded religious biases.
>
> Theosophy (as I understand it) adds that those "rights" include
> responsibilities. Those are for the whole of our world and,
> also,
> every one of the many entities that constitute its universal
> environment. We share atoms, molecules, forces and powers with
> the
> whole of Nature. Our responsibilities become logically apparent
> when we
> dwell on the idea of having a continued share in past, present
> and the
> future of all, including ourselves.
>
> It is NATURE as a whole (Is this the basis for the concept of
> "God?")
> that supports and gives us "life." Because we are "small," and
> one
> among quintillions in our own minds, does not mean we are either
> unessential or powerless.
>
> Why should we permit ourselves to consider others to be
> unimportant and
> not due their rights (even if the seem "wrong" to us). The fact
> is that
> (if there is a "God") if a universal being exists, human or
> otherwise,
> there is a LAW in the UNIVERSE that supports its being there.
> Correct?
> Everything, without exception, lives under some law or laws.
> Everything
> has a relation, however remote with all others, and no one is
> entitled
> to say that this is unnecessary, irrelevant, frivolous or may be
> terminated. And, as far as I am able to see, we have no right to
> make
> "final" decisions about its continued "living." We just don't
> have the
> broad range of knowledge needed to be entirely fair and just. Do
> we? Oh,
> yes, sometimes, we condemn others on the basis of expediency and
> impatience, and arrogate to ourselves the right to "act as God
> would
> direct us!" But on review, impartially, we usually find there is
> a flaw
> of reasoning there.
>
> There remains the cases of perversion and absolute EVIL. I mean
> deliberate transgression against the Laws of fairness, equality,
> compassion, and equable responsibility. This is characterized by
> intense selfishness, harming and torturing others, and a
> carelessness
> for those others' needs and living. There is this in evidence,
> when
> actions and arguments are advanced characterized by making the
> weak, the
> indefensible, and the poor -- victims of such misused power.
> Finally, is
> a wicked person a sick person? Are there illnesses of mind and
> psyche
> that reprehensible as they are to the sane and balanced person,
> may be
> cured? If so, how?
>
> My answer is that such individuals ought to be "restrained." I
> cannot
> support, in all fairness, "capital punishment." Mankind and we,
> as
> individuals, do not have either knowledge, right or power to
> decide for
> others how to live, but if their lives encroach unfairly on
> others, then
> they ought to be restrained. I do not mean punishment, since
> there
> again, we would find it most difficult to adequately understand
> the
> motives of such persons. But it is evident that they ought to be
> prevented from inflicting further pain on their fellows or anyone
> or
> anything else.
>
> Speaking further to this point, I would say if we delve in our
> own
> memories we will find examples of such conflicts arising --
> either as
> to our own past thoughts, emotions, motives, and decisions -- or
> as
> observations of the words and actions of others around us.
>
> It may be considered difficult and tasteless to discuss "morals,"
> and
> "ethics."
> But nevertheless, those, and the question of universal criteria
> for vice
> and virtue, are the common base for all our, and everyone else's
> decisions. In fact, one might say that our lives are focussed on
> developing in ourselves a most sensitive moral sense, so that we
> cannot
> do "wrong" to anyone.
>
> I have widely travelled during my life to many countries, and
> wherever I
> went I was not thoroughly cognizant of the local statues and
> laws. But
> with good will to all and with the firm conviction that if I
> behaved in
> a fair and honest way, others would respond likewise, I have
> always been
> treated well.
>
> I am convinced through practical experience, that there is a
> universal
> unwritten LAW that rules the whole of nature fairly. Mankind is
> only a
> powerful portion of this whole. As such, one of our present
> "lessons"
> is to behave likewise and voluntarily. The focus is on being a
> "volunteer." How can we decide to "join society" even when
> "no-one" is
> looking? (But is it entirely true that our secret thoughts and
> acts
> remain forever unknown and invisible? Isn't it curious that many
> religions seek to reassure miscreants that their God will pardon
> them,
> and grant them the 'future' (but unprovable) pleasures of
> "heaven"
> providing they "repent" and rejoin the "faith?" Don't you think
> such
> claims ought to be logically examined? )
>
> If THEOSOPHY is correct, we are all "immortal Pilgrims" on a long
> way
> towards "Supreme Perfection." We reincarnate as
> "spiritual-mind-souls."
> And our Universe and world are examples of a dynamic harmony
> achieved so
> that the processes of living are made impartial and appropriate
> to all.
>
> In effect, "God," or "DEITY" is claimed to be universal, and is
> equally
> present in us -- as in everything else -- from the sub-atom to
> the
> outermost galaxy, with equal opportunities for increment of
> intelligence, and the development of individual, independent
> self-consciousness.
>
> What lacks? An understanding in full of this scheme of actual
> life, and
> the purpose of all living. Every religion claims the universality
> of
> their "God." If so, then GOD as a basis, being UNIVERSAL is
> identical,
> and only each religion uses different names for the same BEING.
> It is
> the priesthoods of the various sects that have developed the
> "differences," instead of emphasizing the similarities.
> THEOSOPHY, per
> contra, emphasizes similarities and encourages each individual to
> think
> these things out for themselves. As far as I am able to think,
> there are
> three things that cannot be eliminated from consideration:
>
> 1. I exist as SELF (SPIRITUAL IMPERISHABLE EGO) and, I think.
>
> 2. The Universe around me exists in all its disparity and
> harmony.
> LAW appears to me to operate in all its relationships great or
> small,
> slow or fast, moral or immoral.
>
> 3. There is a regular and lawful relationship existing between
> myself and my surrounding world and universe.
>
> See if this is of help.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Dallas
>
> =====================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zakk D
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 12:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Request for comments
> =====================================
>
> Dallas,
>
> Thank you for the material. It would appear that karma would be
> better
> understood, not by a definition, but by a description.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
> To: <study@blavatsky.net>
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 1:16 PM
> Subject: [bn-study] Re: Request for comments
>
>
>
> March 1 2004
>
> RE: [bn-study] Re: Request for comments KARMA Aphorisms on --
>
>
>
> Here is the text of APHORISMS ON KARMA
>
> They state very clearly the basis on which our Universe and world
> operate -- where the moral value of intention has a preeminent
> power.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> APHORISMS ON KARMA
>
>
> (1) There is no Karma unless there is a being to make it or feel
> its
> effects.
>
> (2) Karma is the adjustment of effects flowing from causes,
> during which
> the being upon whom and through whom that adjustment is effected
> experiences pain or pleasure.
>
> Etc....
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Distributed by Reed Carson P.O. Box 160 Windham NY 12496 USA
> You are currently subscribed to bn-study as:
[zakkduffany@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: [dalval14@earthlink.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-study-7560482L@lists.lyris.net