[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Re: Theosophy in the mist

May 02, 1998 03:53 PM
by Mark Kusek

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
> > Sitting on the fence reading Blavatsky is still just sitting on the fence.
> At least it is my fence!

OK, Dallas.

> > Your services as research librarian have always been welcomed
> > and appreciated.
> Now that is not being fair to a bunch of other students Jerry
> Ekins, Daniel Caldwell, Ernest Pelletier, Ted Davy, Alan Donat,
> Jophn Van Mater, Jerry Shoeler, Eldon Tucker, yourself, Ramadoss,
> Reed Carson, Vic Hao Chin,  Dara Eklund, Caren Eylan, Judy
> Saltzman, Jerome Wheeler,  and all of you that read and consider
> and either think well or ill of the turbulence of progress.

I meant it seriously. I never intended to be unfair to anyone.

> I am very conscious of possibly being quite wrong.  But then, I
> depend on you and others to set me right - that is the "fun" of
> working with such a wonderful group of active minds -- they don't
> let you get away with anything.  Excellent set of checks and
> balances, and that to my mind is exactly what Theosophy is all
> about.

OK. No one is immune from the possibility of being wrong, not even
"Masters," but it doesn't have to stop you from speaking your mind.

> HPB hints that the Pyramids were constructed under the direction
> of Atlantean Adepts, the Wise Men of that age -- and if so "slave
> labor" then or now is not countenanced by Theosophy.  If
> Theosophy is right, then we are the Atlanteans reincarnateld and
> continuing in our own way the work we have set ourselves to do in
> continuation of whatever goals we set up for ourselves then.

Check all the extent sources in Atlantean lore and tradition. I admit
that these are spotty, uneven and will definately take you out of the
zone of "pure theosophy," but slave races and genetically (and/or
magically) engineered "workers" were indeed reputed to have been there
at various times, especially in the degenerate later periods. It was
hardly all sweetness and light.

I never said Theosophy "countenanced" slave labor. But there were all
kinds of freaky stuff supposedly going on in the degenerate periods.
Have you ever read "A Dweller on Two Planets," or "An Earth Dweller

> Mark what any one of us may have done, is not relevant to any
> question currently being considered.  The usefullness of any
> current opinion or contribution is inherent in its universality,
> impersonality, and general validity -- otherwise it is a total
> waste of everyone's time.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Specific individual and personal accounts are
totally valid. I don't think they are a waste of time at all. It's the
art of life. I have no problem seeing the personal as metaphor.

> How can I try to speak to you of these ideas if you have not got
> the same references that I use?

You could try putting them into your own words, speaking person to
person, man to man, etc. ... you know, getting off the fence.

How can you know what I carry in my bosom?

> What I mean:  I am not a "dare devil."  I take
> risks enough otherwise, and would not be here without that too.
> But before I risk, I try to consider all that is relevant.  Many
> years ago I read a book named CAPTAIN CAUTION.  The hero
> seemingly was a plodder, but he thought, and when he was sure he
> acted surprisingly fast.  Others were then confused, but he had
> thought out the risks and the goals, and therefore was
> successful.  I rather admired the concept.

You'll never anticipate everything, no matter how much you try. The
skills developed by experience in action are different, but no less
valid than those engendered by caution. I never meant that one needs to
be a daredevil or hurl yourself unthinking into the fray. You really
need a healthy dose of both, in my opinion. But I absolutely do not
consider bravery and the courage of one's convictions to be detriments
in any way. Quite the opposite. I would rather throw all of my books
away and be able to stand on my own feet than to revere or depend on
them so much that I can't function without them.

> Believe me I have had that experience when I was
> about 10 and almost drowned.
> But in the psychic realm I have a very strong sense of caution,
> and do not wish to find out if I could survive.  Too many
> warnings for me to be foolhardy or vainglorious.  But this does
> not mean that I do not study the subject.  And learn all I can
> about it.

Psychic realm!

I'm just talking about expressing yourself socially by typing personal
view points to list members on the Internet, not about any psychic

If you think I'm recommending foolhardiness or vainglory you have
completely misunderstood me.

> You are quite right.  It is Kama-Manas, and the
> technical word explains the relationship,  It is Manas that has
> been degraded by desire-Kama, and made a slave to the Desire
> nature.  What future is there for the Desires?

That seems a little disdainful toward both desire and the personality. I
don't share that attitude with you, although I know sometimes
theosophists and other esoteric ascetic types like to beat themselves up
about it. Tanha is the basis for all manifestation. It's not going
anywhere but to sleep during pralaya. Do you think that some form of
desire does not come into play as a cause of manifestation at the cosmic
level? When Spirit and Matter first appear, is not some form of
attraction or desire active between them? Can they polarize within Unity
without it? Even while holding positions as polar opposites within the
One, do they not irresistibly desire each other?

> In the Mind I can sense a future, but in the jangle of desire, I
> sense none.  Yet it is a faculty representing the highest
> devlopment of the animal nature;  and as such it deserves to be
> raised to the next natural stage for it, that of discrimination
> and compassion when it passes from selfish to unselfish.  That is
> what the man-stage is for, as I understand it.  Man transmutes
> passion into compassion through brotherhood and fairness to all
> creatures.

If you are a human in a body, then desire has already been raised to the
next stage. I'm as much for compassion as you are. But you can't divorce
yourself from emotion or stand removed somewhere inside in order to
"pass it from selfish to unselfish" or "transmute it from passion to
compassion." You can't avoid it. It doesn't work that way. You have to
live the transition, feel through it each time. You change it by being
adept at maneuvering in the territory. If you deny your feelings you'll
only give them the power to bowl you over unexpectedly. One of the keys
is to accept and be compassionate towards them. Compassion itself is the
healing balm. It's hard work and you're not always successful. It takes
practice and often, a lot of apologies. When I hear you say stuff like
that, you sound like you're anywhere but smack dab in the middle.

> >I understand identification with the personality, but I also know that
> >all the talk about "IT" just keeps you from integrating the core
> >experience.
> Well I am not convinced of that.  To "feel" is wonderful -- and
> as an artist you rely on that. I would not recommend abandoning
> it. BTW do you know Leigh McClosky and his work?  I also had
> the experience of living for many years with an artist as a lad,
> and learned a lot.

It's obvious you're not convinced and nothing anyone can say or do will
ever give you the direct experience I'm speaking of. You have to do it
for yourself. I'm sorry that you feel inclined to abandon your
"feelings." It must be quite an effort. I don't feel that way. I accept
them. I should also tell you that I don't really read your responses to
obtain recommendations. I'm just trying to converse with you. I find
your generalizations about artists amusing. I'm sorry to say, but I
don't know Leigh McClosky or his work.


> > I have a question for you Dallas, and for the list at large:
> > What is the relationship between Monadic Swabhava and the ordinary
> > experience of personal individuality?


> Swabhava as I understand the Sanskrit is the sense of "purpose in
> life, or in existence."  SWA - Self   BHAVA   - duty, purpose,
> bliss etc...
> The Monad by theosophical definition is ATMA-BUDDHI  (the "Ray"
> of the universal spirit, and its vehicle Mulaprakriti or
> MahaBuddhi  (root matter) its inseperable twin.)  As such the
> MONAD has one great function.  It unifies.  it gives purpose and
> life to all things.  It is the source of Brotherhood.  It is in
> one aspect the root and being of KARMA -- since the law of
> reciprocity puts everything into motion.

Atma-Buddhi are individualized vehiches of a monad's ray. What of
Paramatman, of Parabrahman??

> Every being is a MONAD clothed in matter.  The evolution of
> the monad starts withn the 'life-atom' and proceeds through all the
> kingdoms up to the man-stage.

Up to and beyond.

> As to our INDIVIDUALITY that I understand is ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS a
> Triad that is deathless -- it reflects its wisdom through MANAS
> (really Buddhi-Manas) on the personality below,

How about to the personality from within?

> the embodied Mind or KAMA-MANAS -- the golden thread of the antaskarana links the
> two.

In the center of the center of the heart of the heart of personality, of
personal ego, IT expresses.
To some this appears as light, to some nothing at all, just interior
darkness (it is unconscious). Yet the heart beats, the mind is bright,
and we have life. "If the light that is in you is darkness, how great is
that darkness!"

> In the evolutionary scheme Kosmically, Spirit and Matter are
> co-eternal and Mind is the many layered relationship that unites
> them in manifestation.  They are deathless, beginningless and
> endless and have no "death."  They simply ARE.   All together
> they form the TRIAD.  the MONAD in evolution is

Deathless, during any solar manvantara.

> As "matter differentiates" it looses its direct perception of
> Spirit, confusion reigns
> (chaos) -- but law constantly works there, and eventually the
> aggregation of 'life-atoms" ( Monadic sparks without minds )
> develops their highest level of consciousness the desire nature,
> this is instinct, or kama. (desires and passions)

I wouldn't say that confusion "reigns." For that would still require a
mind to be confused. The ray does not develop even rudimentary manasic
qualities until it reaches the higher animal kingdom. I would rather say
that the potential of the ray is temporarily limited and conditioned by
the undeveloped capacities of its vehichle(s) in any of the lower
kingdoms where it dwells.

As it progresses, the ray eventually aquires the capacity to express and
act through the vehichles on any the various planes it inhabits. I agree
that the apex of its development in the animal kingdom is expression
through kamic instinct.

> Man links all this together as he has an animal body (with
> instinct and kama active as that which we call the personality --
> Kama-Manas)  this has its own independence as it draws its life
> from not only itself (as matter), but from that LIFE which Manas
> reflects into it.  That is where we all are.

"The LIFE which Manas reflects into it."

Can we stop here for a moment:

What is your experience of this "reflection" of the LIFE of
Individuality into personality?
What does it seem like from within your own ordinary conscious personal

Does a deep sense of Individuality within you, form the basis and
nucleus of your personal egoic identification or does it not? If not,
with what are you identifying instead?

If it does, and Individuality, by your own understanding, is
ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS, the vehichle in manifestation of the monadic ray,
then can you or can you not trust it?

> That is where we
> have to disentangle this psycho-physiological confusion and make
> some working strength out of the experience.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application