Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00062)

Well, it seems as though perhaps the theos-l "Lodge" doesn't go
completely dark in the summer after all!

This is a response to Paul's reply to Alan ...  some snipping
done (not for editorial reasons, but because some people pay for
post size & I don't want to repeat words already posted).

>Furthermore, new souls are _not_ coming up all the time.  That
>particular door has been closed for a long time, and will not be
>open again for another round or so, according to various sources
>(not just theosophical.)  By positing a fixed number of jivas,
>it's feasible to consider that there is a limit to the number that
>can be in incarnation at any one time.  The more there are, the
>more opportunities there are to embody--but getting here is still
>a tremendous privilege.

But this also posits a very fixed, closed system.  Is not the
universe virtually chock full of life? Is it not fully possible
that that there is no cosmic overlord maintaining "rules"? That,
for instance, there are beings from all over the place that come
here to use the central nervous system of the physical human form
as a point of access to the physical band of this planet ...  for
varying lengths of time and for various reasons?

There is, right now, a large migration going on in the western US
...  over one million people have moved from California to the
Denver area in the last few years ...  could the same thing not
happen at the larger levels ...  what if our sudden increase in
earth population came from some large groups of travelling
"jivas" discovering earth and the portals to physical level
experience upon it? Is it not at least possible that there aren't
nearly as many hard and fast rules as most of the Theosophical
system seems to imply? That perhaps some souls do a kind of long
multi- incarnational loop, while others are only here for
temporary, specialized experiences, and still others only
incarnate once ...  [as is the analogical case at the University
where I work ...  some students doing a full four year degree,
others going for only one year on exchange programs, others doing
two far more intense years as Masters students, and still other
community members only taking one class now and then for nothing
other than self-enrichment].

> This process takes a long time, and is not necessarily linear,
> but more like a spiral.  There are flowerings, then periods of
> decay, as civilizations rise and fall.  The suggestion of hope is
> that the highest point of each sucessive civilization is higher
> (in a spiritual sense, rather than materialistic one) than the
> ones preceding.  This process takes a _very_ long time, but there
> are signs that humanity is improving.  For example, 1,000 years
> ago it was inconceivable that nations could work together to
> relieve suffering -- look at the work of the United Nations now.
> That's progress, in my opinion.

Well, 1000 years ago the concept of the "nation-state" didn't
really exist as we know it today ...  and it is really modern
technology that even permits people to be aware that there is a
"global" village that they belong to.  Most humans a millenium
ago were lucky if they had any awareness of half the population
on their own continent, let alone other continents.  But,
neighbors *did* apparently feel far more responsible for one
another than they do today.  We have built enormous cities in
which people in neighborhoods, in fact residents of single
buildings do not even know each other, let alone feel any concern
for one another.  The United Nations is a nice idea, but is
funded, and dominated by, those nations who have actually had
quite a bit to do with causing a lot of the suffering.  And, this
century, according to most historians, is by far the bloodiest in
all of recorded history.  Yes, we invented the United Nations ...
but we also invented the concept of the World War ...  and I
personally would gladly do without the first if it meant I could
also do without the second.

> At the same time, there is mercy in denying recollection of just
> what kind of evil buggers we may have been in the past, which
> might lead to despair and inability to make any positive steps.

Ah, the strange logic of this.  First karma and reincarnation are
"universal laws", then they somehow seem to become delibrately
merciful, then they decide that they should keep from people the
memories of their evil because this might cause despair.  Whew!
How very odd that universal laws apparently have *personalities*,
and that even further those personalities appear to bear a
striking resemblance to those of parish priests.  (-:)

>If one accepts that the process of evolution is not actually
>happening to us as personalities, but rather to that part of us
>which is relatively immortal (the reincarnating self), then at
>that level of consciousness, which is ordinarily denied to us in
>the body, there _is_ recollection.

If the process of evolution is really happening to this immortal
part, what the devil difference does it make *what* happens to
the personality? Looking from the viewpoint of that immortal
self, isn't most of what we call "evil" almost completely
irrelevant? We consider murder one of the worst evils imaginable,
but *what does murder mean to an immortal being*?

This is one of those things that has always struck me as odd
about the theories of karma and reincarnation.  It is first
postulated that to make any sense, to explain the enormous
apparent problems with those theories (such as no recollection of
past lives, and no awareness what one is being "punished" for
when some nasty event happens), one must include a relatively
immortal being that stands behind the scenes and directs things
...  but then these theories are spoken of as though that
immortal being shares the same very limited assumptions of the
"incarnating" entity.  What *would* be the perspective of an
immortal layer of consciousness ..  we speak of reincarnation in
terms of past, present and future lives, but this *assumes* that
our spiritual core is only capable of the single, linear
dimension of time that our brain squeezes reality into.

Even further, following this line of thinking turns "karma" into
one of the most unimaginably unjust "laws" any demon could make
up.  Imagine a parent who watches their first son beat up a
playmate, and then, five years later, delibrately places their
second son, without his knowledge and without explaining the
reason, into a situation in which he gets beat up.

In fact, it seems as though the laws of karma and reincarnation
*only* make sense (and even then not much) to a limited,
incarnate physical brain consciousness ...  the more one attempts
to see things *as an immortal being would*, the less sense most
of the theories seem to make.

> From that point of view, it is just.  The personality, however,
> is relatively unreal.  It has no independent existence, being a
> transitory and rather loose collection of skandas, drives,
> conditioning and habit, with a sprinkling of whatever spiritual
> awareness that can make it through from our innermost levels.  It
> is born, and will surely die.  Life is fair, but it's not
> intended to cater to the whims of the human and therefore limited
> brain consciousness.

Again this wonderful contradiction.  The personality is unreal,
with no independent existance, yet its acts are of such
importance that they generate "karma"? Would not the actions of
an unreal being be equally unreal? Even further, what is being
said is stunning: That the human personality is apparently
incapable of understanding or coming to clarity about
*particular* manifestations of the laws of karma and
reincarnation (which would seem most relevant to understand), yet
at the same time is capable of going on *at length and in great
detail* about the huge universal principles behind those
manifestations? Is this not rather a tad like saying that an
infant who is as of yet incapable of standing up without falling
down is nontheless capable of understanding the mathematics
behind Newton's law of gravity?

> My guess is that there is generally an unwillingness to return,
> but the waters of Lethe (i.e.  wiping of memories past) combined
> with tanha (the thirst for life experiences) combine to draw us
> again into the fleshly envelope.

Yes, a guess.  And one that must be made once you accept karma &
reincarnation as an operative paradigm.  In fact one must
construct an entire house of guesses about all sorts of different
things to make those theories match experiential reality.

> Again, this is a matter of perspective.  It's certainly possible
> that exceptional students, or graduates, are given the choice of
> moving into other worlds.  I question however your idea of
> "interminable." Surely a few hundred thousand years in one set of
> globes isn't too much to ask when we're immortal?

Again, an immortal being that thinks in terms of three dimensions
of space and one directional axis of time? Lord above, the
average Master's student in physics thinks more expansively than
that.

> Everything I have learned in theosophy would tend to support your
> conclusion, however we have to graduate from kindergarten before
> we can go and "play" in the wider universe.  There are probably a
> billion worlds where the One Life is manifesting--of course there
> will be opportunities for each of us to learn, love and serve in
> unimagineable ways.  For now, let's remember we have work to do
> now, on this world, in this life--but try to enter the Silence
> where such distinctions are unimportant.

Why, why, *why* should we "remember" such a thing.  This species,
for some reason, is really awesomely masochistic.  All of our
religions seem to be constructed are the mythos of the immensely
suffering hero ...  of postulating that life is gloomy, that we
all have "lessons" (speak that word in an appropriately serious
tone with downcast, reverential eyes!) to learn, and if we don't
learn them we'll have to keep "coming back" until we do ...  as
though universal laws are some sort of weird 19th century
Catholic nun.  Why frame the purpose of existance as "work"? Why
would we think that *this planet* at *this time* (a tiny speck of
dust out of trillions, with aeons of time existing before it and
after it) is the place where we are in kindergarten?

Say, what if growing numbers of people began standing up,
throwing the ponderous pronouncements and continual dark warnings
of the prophets and wise men out the window, and building life
and civilization on the assumption that we are immortal souls who
came to this planet out of sheer enjoyment ...  that we are not
bound here by fate but visiting here by predilection ...  that
there really is plenty for all of us on this bountiful planet
(which there really, in fact, is) ...  that we are not here to
"work" (with all of the connotations behind that word), but to
engage in the sheer joy of reality creation, with cosmically
unusual substances, within the particular vibratory ranges that
this planet offers ...

...  that maybe the "Fall" began the moment we collectively
*accepted the idea that we have fallen*.

With love & giggles,                  -JRC