Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00280)

At 05:50 PM 5/4/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960504053517.00693204@mail.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii <alexei@slip.net> writes
>>I have
>>come up with the following questions based on experience: I. Do the "notions
>>of the cycles of manifestation, reincarnation, and Karma" actually represent
>>some kind of reality?
>
>IMO these are three separate notions.  My view is that there may be
>cycles of manifestation, though the term is very vague: manifestation of
>what?  As for reincarnation, the *evidence* is sketchy, but has some
>merit, but there are alternative explanations for it.

I have long been working on the idea that perhaps both the theosophists and
the spiritualists are "wrong" and yet "right". My excarnate colleague and I
have come up with a notion that perhaps the reality of the matter lies
somewhere in between. I think it's covered in my book, in part one which you
have.

It does not
>appear to be cyclic, unless perhaps (insufficient data) a student's
>subjective view of it *inserts* a cyclic interpretation.  Karma:  I went
>on an outing up the river to join in a firend's birthday celebrations,
>and we had tea and scones at Bee's Tea Rooms (!) on the riverside before
>coming back.  It was an organised outing, and we were told, as we took
>our tea and scones, "It will all be paid for at the end."  Just like
>life, I thought.  Maybe Karma is a bit like that, but cyclic?  Only if
>it is tied in to the notion of reincarnation.  In my philosophy it isn't
>tied in like that, so my view is different.  TANSTAAFL.

I think that if one views "Karma" as in any way retributive or even as
consciously educational, one is probably on the wrong track. I have come to
the notion that "Karma" per se, as a word, may be entirely misleading. I
think that in the course of its serial manifestation the manifesting entity
creates a flavor or tone and that effects further manifestations. Perhaps we
can see it as individual and unique expressions of a "Creative word", very
much like the "word" that brings the cosmos into manifestation, and that
"tone" changes and evolves over time and as it does the manifestations do
too. That's my view of "Karma".


>
>> 2. Does anything the physical conscious entity do have
>>much effect on the spiritual development of that entity?
>
>Maybe, maybe not - how can we tell?  Go look for the spiritual
>development, perhaps.  Decide first what we (I) mean by "spiritual" and
>so forth.  Try to be aware *as* spiritual entity.  It works for me, but
>I have to define my parameters and catalog my experience at the same
>time as I travel along "The Path."  *The Path* - Wow! :-)

As I think I've made clear, to me, "spiritual" has only one meaning and that
is non-carnate! If it's an intelligence center, and it hasn't got a body,
it's a spirit. I cannot accept that certain concepts or actions by physical
beings are more or less "spiritual" there's nothing real except energy in
any case. But Democritus knew that an awful long time ago!
>
>> 3. What does "live
>>the life" actually mean and does it really depend on theosophical
>>hypothesis?
>
>If it depends on theosophical anything, surely it depends on one's
>perception of theosophical teachings?  If so, living the life means
>following those teachings in daily life.  Personally I would recommend
>caution, though, and look for empirical backup evidence.  If someone
>unexpectedly smacks me in the mouth, am I *getting* karma or is the
>other person *starting* some.  I wouldn't care for God's karma! :-)

Luckily there is no biblical busybody type "God", for that creature's Karma
would be infinitely worse than Hitler's. I fully agree with you about
"Living The Life with caution". One, I think, lives out the "hand" destiny
and genetics deals one, as best one knows how, and to the best of one's
abilities and hopes for the best.
>
>> 4. Do the "notions of the cycles of manifestation etc." actually
>>simply represent signposts pointing to an understanding of reality and the
>>human condition that one must find for one's self?
>
>I think all the teachings are signposts, but signposts can be
>misleading, as well as informative.  When motorists come from south to
>north from Southampton to Bristol on route A36, the signposts for
>Bristol actually take them on a long detour via the city of Bath.  This
>is to make sure they avoid the scenic route, which is also the shorter,
>but potentially more dangerous one.  Also, the villages along it like a
>quiet life.

I fully agree.
>
>>It is true that altruism and good deeds only go so far, and they probably
>>have nothing to do with the realm of spirit, but the do address Buddha's
>>concerns regarding the suffering of human beings.
>
>.. which has to be a good thing.
>>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
It sure does.

alexis d.>