RE: Practical theosophy: was DEFENSE OF HPB and moving on.
Jan 27, 1999 11:41 AM
by Bazzer (Paul)
> >I think we have to take the I / me reasonably seriously. This
> is after all
> >the vehicle of the higher consciousness during incarnation.
What is posing the statement: "we have to take the I / me reasonably
seriously"? Is it the I / me itself?
The Quarternary is the vehicle of incarnation. It has to become "cypher".
The "me" clouds/muddies the vehicle. Big problem.
>> And it is
> >'through' the personal vehicle in each incarnation that most of us either
> >help or hinder the forward movement of humanity. As we know from the
> >theosophical teachings the conscious link with our higher nature is one
> >that has to be forged during incarnation. Humanity as a whole
> seems to be
> >incredibly identified with the personality doesn't it. This
> >won't go away, in my view, just by saying the personality isn't
How important is the "personality" compared to Humanity as a Whole?
Extract from "The Voice of the Silence":
"The Self of matter and the SELF of Spirit can never meet. One of the twain
must disappear; there is no place for both.
Ere thy Soul's mind can understand, the bud of personality must be crushed
out, the worm of sense destroyed past resurrection."
> >But more importantly the feeling of "I" or "I am I" is derived
> from Manas.
> >AS HPB writes in the Key to Theosophy page 33-34..
> >"We distinguish between the simple fact of self-consciousness, the simple
> >feeling that "I am I," and the complex thought that "I am Mr. Smith" or
> >"Mrs. Brown." Believing as we do in a series of births for the
> same Ego, or
> >re-incarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of the
> whole idea.
> >You see "Mr. Smith" really means a long series of daily
> experiences strung
> >together by the thread of memory, and forming what Mr. Smith calls
> >"himself." But none of these "experiences" are really the "I" or the Ego,
> >nor do they give "Mr. Smith" the feeling that he is himself, for
> he forgets
> >the greater part of his daily experiences, and they produce the
> feeling of
> >Egoity in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore,
> >between this bundle of "experiences," which we call the false (because so
> >finite and evanescent) personality, and that element in man to which the
> >feeling of "I am I" is due. It is this "I am I" which we call the true
> >individuality; and we say that this "Ego" or individuality plays, like an
> >actor, many parts on the stage of life."
Yes, that is true. The "bundle of 'experiences'" is being termed the "me".
> > I think if we just view people as
> >personalities, as "a bundle of transient memories" then we also
> lose sight
> >of that "self consciousness" in the other person which is the true actor
> >within the personality.
Precisely. We loose sight of (the) Individuality.
> The danger here is that our actions
> towards people
> >may then become indifferent rather than theosophical.
Is it un-theosophical to see beyond the difference?; the difference we call
'you' and 'me'? To see beyond the great dire heresy of separateness?
> >I'm trying to get a sense of what this might mean for you and me
> in practice
It may mean "you" and "me" will have to get out of the driving seat.
> I mean as a practicing theosophist?
What is a practicing theosophist?
> How do you use this
> to help you
> >to relate to the people around you, to those you come into
> contact with on a
> >daily basis?
Use what, Peter? If Oneness IS, what is there to relate *to*?
"The people around you" might imply being the centre of importance. Does
that not create a problem? Does that not create *the* problem?
> >To dismiss people as illusory parts seems un-theosophical for
Where did such a thought arise?
All best wishes,
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application