Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00369)

Keith:

>I would like to suggest that karma can be evidenced by genetics as well as
>astrology.

Both bear correlations with the person being born because all of life
is interconnected. But is there causality here?

I'd say that astrology is descriptive not causitive. A natal chart
describes the general conditions at the time of an individual's birth
conditions which limit and influence what sort of person the individual
can be. If someone is born into a dark age one is influenced by the
culture and other people coming into brith even if one *inwardly* is
much better.

Regarding genetics the genes are said to determine the formation of
the body and many of the personality attributes as one ages. But again
are the genes the *cause* of the personality? I'd say "no". The genes
provide the "holding pattern" that allows the personlity a sense of
continunity. The initial life-impress determines the genetic selection
which sustains that impress through the lifetime.

> much of what we call skandhas are really genetic messages that we
> must obey. They are not our individual encoded karma exactly. They
> are the behaviors of our ancestors for good or bad and we relive
> their lives and loves and hates just as we resemble them in our
> physical bodies.

The general genetic pool which we draw upon in a particular culture
is part of the "holding pattern" for a particular subrace. There are
family tribal and national gene pools just as there are general
types of experiences offered in different group settings.

Being born into a particular culture our experiences are qualified.
The external limitations upon and encouragements to our natures
do not specifically come as a result of our personal karma except
in the sense of the idea of merit. It is a privilege to be born into
a nation where the Buddhadharma is alive where there is access to
the Mysteries and the Path. There is a sense of karmic merit to be
born into such a land rather than into a land of abject misery where
we might look forward to a 20-year lifespan frantically searching for
food before we die never having learned to read or write.

> We do not reincarnate as a collected set of seven bodies but the ...
> bodies ... get reshuffled in the great gene pool ... and do not live
> one continuous life through several incarnations but experience the
> karma of all the generations and individuals before us ... through
> the genetic selection program.

When we look at the external human personality it draws upon the
storehouse of nature in coming into birth. It draws manas from Mahat
kama from Fohat prana from Jiva the sense perceptions from the Astral
Light nad the physical form from the objective world.

What do we draw? It is generic stuff or does it bear some particular
relationship to *us* the individuals coming into birth? I'd say that
it not only bears a relationship to us but is *our stuff*. The term
Skandhas is a description of this stuff which also has been called our
life-atoms. While disincarnate this stuff returns to the elements and
circulates through other living beings; while incarnate this stuff
returns to us as our particular personalized materials or clothes of
consciousness that we dress ourselves in.

With each incarnation we're starting off with a blank sheet of paper.
That sheet of paper is drawn from a particular supply and we're working
in a particular setting. Both influence how we may write or draw. But
we're picking up our trusty pen or paint brush one we've used many
times before and we -- the writer or artist -- will express ourselves
as best we can in the current setting. There are obvious external
conditions that limit or encourage us but we the creative intelligence
continue from previous sessions and are better able to do things because
of our prior experiences.

> We have lived before ... as the collective experience of humanity
> from lowest criminal to highest saint - from untouchable to Brahmin.

We share in the experiences of others. They all sweeten or dirty the
waters about us. And we feel the pain and joy of other living beings.

The collective experience is the *setting* the drama on the stage of
life that we enter into. But we are individual players on that stage
each with our own role; and we bring with us our individual skill
sets and unique way of acting skills and talents that we are responsible
for perfecting and putting to good use.

> When we endevor to remember past lives we are searching in the
> collective unconcious for remenants of archetypal human patterns
> and not specific real past lives with verifiable details etc.

This is what I think often happens with so-called past-life memories
perhaps from hypnotic age-regression techniques. The individual sees
into the astral light and picks out general images that are used to
construct a tale of a past life. This is probably similar to how dreams
are constructed out of the content of our consciousness also drawing
upon images in the astral light about us.

> The bad news is that many may feel this is not an acceptable or
> "spiritual" hypothesis in that it reduces the importance of the
> individual as center of the universe - ie the integrity of the
> evolving monad.

You've been describing the nature of physical existence. We come into
life in a cooperative setting. The structure of life has to a great
degree been determined by others before we step on-stage and enter the
drama ourselves. Our role is largely-determined or limited by the act
and scene of the play currently in progress on that stage. But this
does not mean that we are not individual actors with prior acting
experience and individual skills and abilities.

> The good news is that it may shed some light on the true unity and
> interconnectedness of the human family and cannot be used for
> selfish or racist purposes because at depth we are trully all one
> right now as we speak.

Our oneness with others is not just something shared at the physical
level through a cooperative physical existence. It comes from the
very beginning when we take on Atman and first enter into manifestation.
>From the very first sensing of the nature and flavor of the universe
before even knowing there are other beings present we experience the
essential unity of that universe that universe's "theme song".

>we [must] make way for advances in genetics even if they are not SC
>spirititually correct.

We must I agree continue in scientific advancement. But as individuals
we're able to take charge of our lives and seek after the pure
unqualified luminious nature of life the sense of emptiness which
paradoxically is richer and more fulfilling than the achievement of any
material objective.

> Of course one can refute this as not being a part of theosophy at
> all. ... we see the popular mind making the same attempts as those
> in the late 1800's to maintain a spiritually active universe within
> scientific rationalism.

The ideas in Theosophy were not made up in the 1800's but can be
shown to appear in the various religions and philosophies of the
world dating back to prehistoric times. They were described in the
1800's in the words and idiom of the 1800's and could be described
in the 2000's in newer words and a newer idiom. The truths about the
workings of consciousness and about the Path though remain the
same.

> Thus genetics and sociobiology ... are a tool of hard cold science
> that like quatumn physics can be used or abused in the future as
> rationalizations for wise policies or the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Any scientific knowledge is a two-edged sword. That is why it is
considerably important to teach people the path of self-knowledge
the path towards enlightenment so that the spirituality of our age
is improved.

It's good to see that you're thinking about things in a new and
original way. But there are two steps to the process. The first is
in analysis or in coming up with new ways of looking at things. The
second is in synthesis or coming back to the original unity. With
the second step we take our new ideas and see how they fit in with
the overall philosophy. As we do so we may end up with a better
appreciation of what it's about than we started with.

-- Eldon