Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00160)

You may find this helpful Pedro
Cass
See Notes to Letter No. 85A.
Â
Â
[A]
At this stage of our correspondence, misunderstood as we generally seem to be, even by yourself, my faithful friend, it may be worth our while and useful for both, that you should be posted on certain facts â and very important facts â connected with adeptship. Bear in mind then, the following points. 
Â
(1) An adept â the highest as the lowest â is one only during the exercise of his occult powers.
Â
(2) Whenever these powers are needed, the sovereign will unlocks the door to the inner man (the adept), who can emerge and act freely but on condition that his jailor â the outer man â will be either completely or partially paralyzed as the case may require; viz.: either (a) mentally and physically; (b) mentally, â but not physically; (c) physically but not entirely mentally; (d) neither, â but with an akasic film interposed between the outer and the inner man.
Â
(3) The smallest exercise of occult powers then, as you will now see, requires an effort. We may compare it to the inner muscular effort of an athlete preparing to use his physical strength. As no athlete is likely to be always amusing himself at swelling his veins in anticipation of having to lift a weight, so no adept can be supposed to keep his will in constant tension and the inner man in full function, when there is no immediate necessity for it. When the inner man rests the adept becomes an ordinary man, limited to his physical senses and the functions of his physical brain. Habit sharpens the intuition of the latter, yet is unable to make them supersensuous. The inner adept is ever ready, ever on the alert, and that suffices for our purposes. At moments of rest then, his faculties are at rest also. 
Â
When I sit at my meals, or when I am dressing, reading or otherwise occupied I am not thinking even of those near me; and Djual Khool can easily break his nose to blood, by running in the dark against a beam, as he did the other night â (just because instead of throwing a âfilmâ he had foolishly paralyzed all his outer senses while talking to and with a distant friend) â and I remained placidly ignorant of the fact. I was not thinking of him â hence my ignorance.
Â
>From the aforesaid, you may well infer that an adept is an ordinary mortal at all moments of his daily life but those â when the inner man is acting.
Â
Couple this with the unpleasant fact that we are forbidden to use one particle of our powers in connexion with the Eclectics (for which you have to thank your President and him alone â ) and that the little that is done is, so to say, smuggled in â and then syllogize thusly: â 
Â
K. H. when writing to us is not an adept.
A non-adept â is fallible.
Therefore, K. H. may very easily commit mistakes; â 
Â
Mistakes of punctuation â that will often change entirely the whole sense of a sentence; idiomatic mistakes â very likely to occur, especially when writing as hurriedly as I do; mistakes arising from occasional confusion of terms that I had to learn from you â since it is you who are the author of âroundsâ â âringsâ â âearthly ringsâ â etc., etc. Now with all this, I beg leave to say, that after having carefully read over and over our âFamous Contradictionsâ myself; after giving them to be read to M.; and then to a high adept whose powers are not in the Chohanâs chancery sequestered by Him to prevent him from squandering them upon the unworthy objects of his personal predilections; after doing all this I was told by the latter the following: âIt is all perfectly correct. Knowing what you mean, no more than any other person acquainted with the doctrine can I find in these detached fragments anything that would really
 conflict with each other. But, since many sentences are incomplete, and the subjects scattered about without any order, I do not wonder that your âlay chelasâ should find fault with them. Yes; they do require a more explicit and clear exposition.â
Such is the decree of an adept â and I abide by it; I will try to complete the information for your sake.
Â
Â
Writing my letters, then, as I do, a few lines now and a few words two hours later; having to catch up the thread of the same subject, perhaps with a dozen or more interruptions between the beginning and the end, I cannot promise you anything like western accuracy. Ergo â the only âvictim of accidentâ in this case is myself. The innocent cross examination to which I am subjected by you â and that I do not object to â and the positively predetermined purpose of catching me tripping whenever he can, on Mr. Humeâs part, â a proceeding regarded as highly legal and honest in western law, but to which we, Asiatic savages, object most emphatically â has given my colleagues and Brothers a high opinion of my proclivities to martyrdom. In their sight I have become a kind of Indo-Tibetan Simeon Stylites. Caught by the lower hook of the Simla interrogation mark and impaled on it, I see myself doomed to equilibrize upon the apex of the semicircle for
 fear of slipping down at every uncertain motion either backward or forward. â Such is the present position of your humble friend. 
Â
Ever since I undertook the extraordinary task of teaching two grown up pupils with brains in which the methods of western science had crystallized for years; one of whom is willing enough to make room for the new iconoclastic teaching, but who, nevertheless, requires a careful handling, while the other will receive nothing but on condition of grouping the subjects as he wants them to group, not in their natural order â I have been regarded by all our Chohans as a lunatic.
Â
ÂI am seriously asked whether my early association with Western âPelingsâ had not made of me a half-Peling and turned me also into a âdzing-dzingâ visionary. All this had been expected. I do not complain; I narrate a fact, and humbly demand credit for the same, only hoping it will not be mistaken again for a subtle and tricky way of getting out of a new difficulty.
Â
Â
find a flaw in the explanation; satisfy him by showing that the latter was after all correct, and he will fly at the opponent for speaking too slow or too rapidly. It is an IMPOSSIBLE task â and I give it up. Let it last until the whole breaks under its own weight. He says âI can kiss no Popeâs toe,â forgetting that no one has ever asked him to do so; âI can love, but I cannot worshipâ he tells me. Gush â he can love no one, and nobody but A.O. Hume, and never has. And that really one could almost exclaim âOh Hume, â gush is thy name!â â is shown in the following that I transcribe from one of his letters: âIf for no other reason, I should love M. for his entire devotion to you â and you I have always loved (!). Even when most cross with you â as one always is most sensitive with those one cares most about â even when I was fully persuaded you were a myth, for even then my heart yearned to you as it often does to an avowedly
 fictitious character.â A sentimental Becky Sharp writing to an imaginary lover, could hardly express her feelings better! 
I will see to your scientific questions next week. I am not at home at present, but quite near to Darjeeling, in the Lamasery, the object of poor H.P.B.âs longings. I thought of leaving by the end of September but find it rather difficult on account of Nobinâs boy. Most probably, also, I will have to interview in my own skin the Old Lady if M. brings her here. And he has to bring her â or lose her for ever â at least, as far as the physical triad is concerned. And now good-bye. I ask you again â do not frighten my little man; he may prove useful to you some day â only do not forget â he is but an appearance.
Yours,
K. H.
Â
__________ 
1ÂK.H.âs replies to the âFamous Contradictionsâ; the numbers correspond to those which appear in the text of Mr. Sinnettâs Queries. See ante [Letter 85A (ML-24A)] â ED.
__________ 
Â
Â
Â




________________________________
From: Pedro Oliveira <prmoliveira@yahoo.com>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 1:53:06 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: a simple question





--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "return_journey" <return_journey@ ...> wrote:

> I think the sense of a separate self is " naturally" acquired thru the evolutionary process. 
> The full 'I' ness comes during the individualization process when the causal body is formed. The 'I' ness then keeps on increasing and is heightened with the increase in the mental body. In fact it is said that this sense of separate self / 'I' ness / ahamkara ... is required for the personality to develop ... after which the journey back to merging with the individuality starts.
> 
> Becos of the aeons of time required for this process ..and repeated impacts stored in the permanent atoms of the lower self .. it becomes a natural thing in due course.
> And this natural thing is what we have to fight and overcome in our return journey ...back to the Higher Self.

Thanks return_journey, Christina, Bill, Brian, Cass and Tony for your replies. I particularly liked the simplicity in Bill's reply. :)

The different traditions seem to vary in their view of the nature of the self. For example, the Vedanta tradition seems to suggest that *Ahankara* - the I-making faculty - is a product of the *tanmatras* or primordial elements. But this same tradition also suggests that only the *Atman* is ultimately real, all else being unreal. *Atman* is not a product of time or evolution but is referred to as pure or unconditioned consciousness. 

The more one thinks about this question, the harder it becomes. It is as if we were amphibious beings, with a part of us immersed in the world of experience, evolution and time, and another part remaining untouched by the somersaults of life.

To add to one's difficulty two well-known passages in Theosophical literature address the question of self:

"My Brother -- I have been on a long journey after supreme knowledge, I took a long time to rest. Then, upon coming back, I had to give all my time to duty, and all my thoughts to the Great Problem. It is all over now: the New Year's festivities are at an end and I am "Self" once more. But what is Self? Only a passing guest, whose concerns are all like a mirage of the great desert. . . ."

(http://www.theosoci ety.org/pasadena /mahatma/ ml-45.htm)

In the above passage Mahatma K.H. refers to self as "a passing guest, whose concerns are all like a mirage of the great desert." Does this indicate that even though self may have an evolutionary role, by its very nature it is not essentially real? Does this have an implication to the way we handle opinions, both our own as well as those of others?

"The Self of matter and the SELF of Spirit can never meet. One of the twain must disappear; there is no place for both." 

(http://www.theosoci ety.org/pasadena /voice/voice1. htm)

Does the above passage from Fragment I of *The Voice of the Silence* suggest that the personal self may act like an anchor during a number of stages in human evolution? Does it imply that, when a certain stage is reached, it is only natural for the personal sense of self to die a natural death? Is this possibility frigthening? Why?

In the *Majjhima Nikaya*, which contains the first fifty discourses from the collection of the medium-length discourses of the Buddha, there is a striking story of a householder who allowed a stranger into his household. He gave him food, drink, introduced him to his family and the stranger endeared himself to every one, staying with the family for some time. Until, one day, he killed the householder. According to the Buddha, the stanger is the self. 

We seem to indulge in horse-trading with the self everyday. We are experts in self-justification. Perhaps we think it is a harmless affair. "Everybody does it" we could well say. And yet this stranger within us, whom we are convinced we know so well, can at any moment flare up as its nature is essentially reactive. And when it does so it not only breaks up or destroys human relationships. It kindles a fire that consumes the world. 

Is it that simple?

Pedro 






      Enjoy a better web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]