Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00042)

>>I am a bit confused here. What gods and goddesses does the modern TS give?
I have not come across it (and I am an active member). <<

Katinka, the SD is full of Manus, Cosmocratores, Rishis, Builders, Solar and
Lunar Pitris, and so on and on, all names (Hindu, I think) given to various
hierarchies of creators.  I can't think of any feminine creative Beings in
the SD off hand, but surely each of these creative beings can be divided
sexually.  Even HPB mentions Kundalini, the feminine creative force/energy
who impells evolution.

>>Yes, but the creativity of the monad (which is us, I
think?) is still active, isn't it?
Katinka >>

Here we are in an area where words simply fail.  "Creativity" by
definition is an action through time, and our divine Monad is outside of
time and needs no evolution (it is, by definition, already perfect)and so to
say that the Monad is creative is a paradox. I find paradoxes like this a
lot when trying to use words to describe spirituality.  I think you will
find that ALL models that try to describe the universe and how it came into
being will have this problem - even the Big Bang Model!  Steven Hawking's
No-Boundary Model is an attempt to get around this and is somewhat
comparable to HPB's Great Breath Model, but neither can answer the
all-consuming question of why?

>>The way I understand it, and the way it has been explained to me, (so I am
copying the idea's of TS-Adyar-The Netherlands here - or at least of a
majority of *us*) is that freedom from karma, for the Jivamukti means that
he/she is no more attached to the karma, so that that specific Ego is no
longer attracted to the results of the action. But the action still has
results, so that another jivamukti may have to bear the results.>>

This is pretty much how I understand it too.  The jivamukti is no longer
associated with any personal karma -- but still is under collective karma so
long as they are alive in a physical body. A jivamukti still must breathe
and eat and sleep/rest, and will still bleed if cut, and will someday die
like everyone else.

>>No heresy, and you are not the only one, Dallas just comes across as
rather more than usually Blavatsky-only-ish. Just don't mind that part of
him (at least, I have learned to just not look at it, it gets to tiresome
otherwise. Sorry Dallas - these are the facts)>>

Dallas is a Theosophical purist.  He uses what we can call the Blavatsky
Model as close as anyone I have ever seen.  He deliberately stays within its
definitions and seldom, if ever, ventures outside.  That's OK.  We all have
to have some kind of model in order to cope with life. I tried to live
within it myself, and found that I just couldn't do it. So, I expanded into
my own model (alias worldview) a bit.  As long as Dallas is happy with the
Blavatsky Model, I say he should stick with it.  Besides, this gives me a
real nice Theosophical yardstick that I can use to measure other models
against. However, I also find myself skipping many of his postings just
because they seem so tiresome (after all, I can just read Blavatsky directly
whenever I want to), but his postings are probably a good read for most
newbies.

Jerry S.