Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00506)

This is an excellent posting Dallas
Thank-you
Perry
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> May 18 2005
> 
> RE: Fundamentalism as a point of discussion?
> 
> Dear Perry:
> 
> "Fundamentalism" to me implies the use of basic ideas from which 
the small
> details of present operations, and a future continuity are always 
derived. 
> 
> The mindset of a true fundamentalist is to assist everyone around 
him. 
> 
> It is also educative since it demands that the basic ideas of life 
and of
> progress be known and discussed. In this way it is generous, kind 
and also
> tolerant. 
> 
> It makes no demands on anyone else than ones' lower self. It is not
> judgmental.
> 
> In effect, it means we operate from the same shared planes and 
ideas of
> knowledge -- some call it truth, others may call it virtue. 
> 
> It then serves to abridge lengthy explanations. 
> 
> But in no way ought it to imply that free-thought is to be 
limited. Nor
> does it imply we ought to be continually judging others and their 
motives.
> It should never encourage any kind of prejudice. 
> 
> 
> What are we humans? : Thinkers ! At least at 3 levels:
> 
> 1	we have memories of what has happened, [ Past ]
> 
> 2	we observe now, and	[ Present ]	
> 
> 3	we think of alternatives on which we will base our decisions.
> [ Future ]
> 
> 
> If we seek to put everyone into the same straight-jacket it results 
in
> failure. That is (I believe) because THINKING has not been taught
> systematically.
> 
> THEOSOPHY as I see it, points always to the ever-acting law of 
Karma. Karma
> provides freedom for everyone and everything. We are always dealing 
with
> immortal Monads whose independence cannot be limited. How do we make
> adjustments is the real question to ask.
> 
> What then is "black and white" -- Motive. The reason why anyone 
does
> anything. It is either selfish and isolating, or it is impersonally 
generous
> and universally kind. I think this definition is the great 
stumbling-block.
> We have not been trained to think in that direction. But there are 
good
> reasons for it. 
> 
> In the survey of evolution given by THEOSOPHY it is shown that the 
Universe
> is made up of innumerable "life-atoms." ( Monads -- consisting of
> permanently united SPIRIT / MATTER / MIND minute elements) . These 
elements
> are immortals -- they do not die but continually progress, ever 
moving all
> together forward, as they learn through experience. Eventually, 
over
> millions of years, each such "life-atom"/ monad becomes independent 
as a
> "feeler," as a "thinker" and finally as a Human. 
> 
> There, as in all of us, emotion and thought co-exist closely. Our 
present
> task is apparently to discover how to separate these two and make 
good use
> of them. They are our tools and not our masters. On this one 
point most
> psychologists have trouble. 
> 
> It is because of this that THEOSOPHY teaches the difference between 
the
> Lower and Higher Self. In an ancient illustration the Higher Self 
was
> compared to a bird sitting at the top of the Tree of Life. Below 
it, it
> brother, a second bird lives and eats the fruits of living. The 
lower bird
> lives and works and as it meets problems, it asks for the advice of 
the
> Superior bird who has acquired the wisdom of experience and 
Perfection. 
> 
> But for us, looking at our present -- all as humans, the journey to
> Perfection is now only half done. The more difficult aspect 
begins. The
> "feeling nature" has realise that the "thinking nature" is its 
friend and
> not its enemy. Both depend on each other. 
> 
> The rest of the effort as the Lower Mind is led upward, will have 
to be
> actively guided by the intelligent thought and control of the Human-
Monad
> for itself in the company of all the rest. We are at the beginning 
stage of
> this effort. We live in emotional, sensitive and "feeling" forms. 
In
> effect we have created them by drawing together compatible 
assistants in the
> form of the many "life-atoms" of lesser experience. We have become 
their
> guides and teachers. They depend on us, and as we make choices, 
they alter
> and adopt them. 
> 
> It is for this reason that "bad choices" have to be first 
identified by us,
> and then avoided. We mold those "lesser experienced monads," and 
they,
> attached to us, become the carriers of the "bad Karma" we have 
imposed on
> them by those molds. [ And similarly, it works in the reverse way 
for
> "good" Karma.] 
> 
> This is the reason for drawing attention to virtue as motive vs. 
vice as
> selfishness. Every great religious reformer of whatever age has 
said this. 
> 
> What effect should this information have on us ? 
> 
> This means the smallest atom and the wisest Mahatma are actually 
differences
> in degree of knowledge, function and WISDOM. The will to improve is 
made
> active and paramount. It works only through open cooperation and 
selfless
> interaction. We have to decide to live impersonally for all. Thus 
we help
> and are helped in return. 
> 
> The atoms work with each other according to general laws of 
attraction and
> repulsion that are innate to their quality. The function of all 
atoms and
> forms is to aggregate (as skandhas) and provide vehicles for higher
> intelligences to reside therein. There is compatibility between 
these
> aggregations and the single Monad which serves as a central point 
for them
> -- It is that which we call: "I" in us. 
> 
> It has among other duties one that is automatic -- to help and 
arouse in
> them a higher degree of intelligence and consciousness while they 
are doing
> their duties each in its own way. Thus improvement is cooperative 
and a
> constant effort. 
> 
> For such an enormous Universe as ours the nature of cooperative 
assistance
> is a vita one -- as the amalgamation and the assimilation of every 
Monad
> with the rest is continuous. 
> 
> The lines of force and of benevolence or of opposition run all 
through
> Nature. Which will we choose to assist? 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perry Coles
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:19 PM
> To: 
> Subject: Fundamentalism as a point of discussion?
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> The word fundamentalist is a word that immediately evokes fear in 
> people's minds.
> 
> As a point of discussion perhaps it may be helpful to discuss what 
do 
> we mean by fundamentalist.
> 
> What is it about fundamentalism that makes it dangerous and against 
> freedom?
> 
> What types of mindsets do fundamentalists have?
> 
> How can theosophy help in a world that seems fixated with black and 
> white concepts and simplistic beliefs?
> 
> 
> Perry