RE: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999
Nov 10, 1999 05:13 AM
by W. Dallas TenBroeck
Nov 101999
Dear Kym:
You are right that I speak as best I can. I do not intend to
overwhelm anyone with my conclusions. I ask questions, or make
statement so that they can be thought over. I review them too,
as I know they are incomplete and may not be as accurate an
expression as I might make, so be generous to them, if you will.
I do not wish to enter into any "argument" as that is fruitless.
"the soft answer turneth away wrath."
People may place different values on words. I try to use the
obvious ones given in the dictionary. and when I am unsure I
launch into an explanation.
I said there was confusion over the areas in which emotionalism
(including sentimentality, love, tenderness, fear, pain anger,
desire, etc...) and "mind" (analysis and synthesis, logic,
imagination, memory, etc...) operate.
Most (including me too) cannot distinguish accurately between
them. But it is possible and worth trying to do that as an
exercise. How do we get greater precision unless we try ?
And that is about all I can add to what is already offered.
Allow me , please to insert some comments below in the body of
your responses
Best wishes
Dal
Dallas
dalval@nwc.net=A0
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
-----Original Message-----
> From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net]
> Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 1:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999
Dallas wrote:
>What I mean is that sometimes sentimentality ( non-reasoning)
>overwhelms us all.
How is sentimentality "non-reasoning?" Sentimentality is another
term for
"tenderness." Is tenderness "non-reasoning?" To me, tenderness
is a very
reasonable response to many events, persons, animals,
experiences, etc.
DTB What is the QUALITY of tenderness ? Is "Reasoning"
different from the "feeling" of tenderness and love ? Does it in
any way detract from "tenderness ?" Or does it seek to explain
it?
>It is difficult to hold it in control, and when it goes of at
>some tangent or another, it drags the "mind" or "reasoning
>faculty" with it, usually.
Agreed, but I postulate that logic, objectivity, and reasoning
can veer off
into a tangent, causing harm, havoc, and pain. Therefore, I
still do not
see how reasoning is "superior" to emotions, including
sentimentality.
DTB Agreed -- but then, What is it that causes such divergence ?
"Superiority" implies (to me) that one can substitute for and
understand the other (with or without sympathy) How is it
possible to take either or both of those positions? What does
the "Mind" do in order to take either of those two views?
>But who or what is the "WE" that even
>considers "to control, or "not to control?"
I was going to say that the "we" is what makes us human, but that
is not
correct as even the Demiurge (a supposed non-human) seems to have
a problem
with control issues.
DTB Relentlessly, I ask myself " What is Human?" What is that
mix? Do you have THE SECRET DOCTRINE? I would refer you to
pages Vol. 2, 79-80, 167 and we might then discuss what is
written there as a starting point. It is quite technical but
also very interesting.
>One of the peculiarities of the sentimental, and desire nature
is
>that it does not consider consequences.
I totally disagree. Desire does not have to be only a
self-serving
mechanism. Sorry to use the sex example, but it applies: One can
desire to
be excessive in their sexual activity, but this same desire can
bring
pleasure to others. Even if one only experiences physical
enjoyment from
something, this same physical enjoyment can serve as a doorway,
or
guidepost, on understanding the feelings and reactions of the
body. A
person learns to understand pain or pleasure; hence, this can be
transferred to another. Example: If a person finds out, during
sex, that
being slapped causes pain, they may learn to refrain from
slapping others
because of their own uncomfortable experience.
DTB But don't you see, your analogy speaks mainly of the feelings
one experiences in reaction to events. It does not speak of the
"reason" why they happened. I am interested in "the reason why."
Not, in how I may feel about an event. There will be vast
differences in feeling, but to get at the cause narrows and
focuses the attention. that is something we can better share, I
think.
>It desires to enjoy, and
>looks forward to continued "enjoyment." In itself this is not
>wrong, but, in my esteem it needs to be balanced with
>reasonableness, and the necessities of our duties and
>responsibilities.
Regarding my example above, one does not need to even factor in
duties and
responsibilities when refraining from hurting others. If I don't
like
something done to me, I probably won't do it to another, but it
doesn't
mean I consider it a duty or responsibility. Children are a good
example.
DTB I used "duties and responsibilities" only as the result of
careful study and decisions made in regard to actions one
initiates or employs in the future, to further the ease of ones'
self or of others, once that it is determined (by ones' self)
that those are needed, or beneficial.
Dallas, to me, you seem to speak in a manner that expects most
people to
already be rather advanced along the "Path." But many people are
not and
talking to someone who has no concept about duties and
responsibilities
will make little headway if they are not yet prepared. Each
person,
regardless of their own national language, has an "internal
language" and
that is what needs to be focused on. If we speak another
language, they
will not understand and they will not learn.
DTB Kym I fully agree with you in this observation. But, while
one's 'position' on the "Path" is a variable, it seems to me that
no matter where one is in life, beginner, or practitioner, etc...
there has to be a starting point. This can start with a
challenge to one's accepted concepts -- the blow or startling
effect, is to find that someone else has a different concept.
"If so, Why ?"
>And I would add that the addition of the mind-faculty to desire
is
>that it can look back in MEMORY to the past; and also look
>FORWARD in anticipation to some desired FUTURE. Without the
mind
>offering these faculties the desire nature alone deals only with
>the present in a reactive and an instinctual manner.
I do not believe that the desire state needs the addition of the
mind-faculty so it can remember or anticipate. The statement you
made
above - "It desires to enjoy, and looks forward to continued
"enjoyment" -
AUTOMATICALLY assigns memory and anticipation to the desire
state. So,
obviously, desire does not need mind to perform those functions.
DTB I RATHER WANTED TO CONVEY THE IDEA THAT THE DESIRE BORROWED
THE MIND FACULTIES AND MADE USE OF THEM. (sorry - not shouting,
just pressed the Caps key in error)
Also, there is a reason for the maintaining of humanity's
"reactive and
instinctual manner." Humanity would have never survived without
it, and
may not yet be able to.
DTB Buddhists might disagree in this view.
What is the value of a life preserved? How is that to be
estimated? who estimates? Is this a reasoned concept of one
that has been adopted because "everybody assumes it to be true ?"
Is there any way we can determine the value of such a question or
shall it be laughed out of court? Is the idea of reincarnation
incorrect? Is there no permanency to man's existence and the
goals that she/he selects? If death ends all, then why set any?
How are pain, illness and accidents to be explained? To say
"they happen" -- is that enough of an explanation? Why is it
that the protective instinct is so strong? These are questions I
have mulled over for years, and gradually have arrived at the
conclusion that the Theosophical views seemed to be the most
comprehensive and reasonable in answering them. But that is not
my surrendering my independence of thought to them -- it is only
my confirming that their doctrines appear (so far) to be the best
(and the most complete) I have yet met.
I agree that anger needs to be tempered, but not
necessarily done away with - not yet. Anger and fear still serve
humanity
as creative forces, and yes, also destructive forces - but those
emotions
still have a place in the current state of human evolvement.
DTB Again I agree, but besides stating these facts, How do we go
about explaining them?
This is why I said that the mind can act in a superior manner.
It accepts the emotion, but then acts using the Why and How (if
it gives itself the time to do this) and if it does, then it
seeks for the causative side of the event, or the proposed
reaction, does it not?
At this stage of evolution, if humanity were to lose anger and
fear, the lack of
understanding is such that I predict what would take its place is
hopelessness and apathy. I am not being pessimistic, quite the
contrary,
but humanity is only now learning what the alternatives are.
DTB This argument has been around for a very long time. I can
recall it in school and college -- but it has never been
demonstrated that the general nature of humanity in any way
reflects such a result (apathy and hopelessness -- you are an
outstanding example of resistance to such a concept, an so am
) -- as and when non-violence has been adopted. Under Gandhi's
influence (I was there in India during that time) the great
majority of the Indian people, disarmed by the British who ruled,
sacrificed themselves as a mass before brutality, murder and
oppression and caused the "humanity" and the innate "humanness"
to surface (among the British) and a great ill to be abandoned.
Political victory -- yes. But at the cost of many of my intimate
friends and their families lives and health and pain and
suffering and even in some cases life itself -- it was quite a
lesson -- I was in school and college in Bombay at that time.
The phenomena of self-sacrifice was wide-spread and spontaneous
all over India. It was not only non-violence, but it was
non-cooperative also.
For many of us, even actions that could be considered
"altruistic" may be based in
fear, rather than true understanding. Example: I believe that
NATO
attempting to stop the genocide in Kosovo had the components of
both
altruism and fear. And I am glad NATO and the world was fearful
of what
was going on in Kosovo - fearful that it may spread to
neighboring
countries - because that fear prompted NATO to save a people
(altruism) and
to stop an aggressive army from marching further (fear).
DTB But there was also (possibly) some feelings of compassion for
a people that were made the victims of insane oppression on
religious feuding grounds. The insanity of blaming the present
generation for the violence and oppression of past generations (a
feud) is quite ridiculous. What about tolerance? Live and let
live? Does another person alive represent, reasonably, a threat
and an object to be obliterated out of fear or one's parents
simmering anger brought forward? What is nature's law in such a
case ? Under Tito (although that was a repressive and regimented
rule - a virtual dictatorship) was there such a genocide? I
speak of this not to argue, but only to present another side of
the "coin."
>Next I consider: What is dominant in Man and Woman ? What
makes
>them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to
>anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ? "WHAT IF.....? "
For me, it is the desire to "create." The creations can be "bad"
or "good"
but creativity and expression seems to be the prime motivator for
humanity.
Create cures, create computers, create people, create art, create
music,
create money, express pain, express emotion, express joy, express
desire.
Expressing desire is the expressing of a thought which in turn
creates
something, both tangible and intangible.
DTB I agree that the driving power of creativity is a fundamental
urge. But I would also ask if one creates, then does one's
ensuing responsibility cease? After the birth of a baby, who
nurtures it for the next 15 to 20 years till it is able to fend
for itself? I would offer that as an example of the
after-effects of a creative act -- consequences always follow
choice and action, don't they? Are we willing to assume the job
of continued care? Many create objects so as to secure approval,
etc... and the motives behind any act are always significant.
Is it not motive that drives us forward? How are we to discover
and know our own? Are they rooted in thought or in desire?
>Where do we get our idealism from?
Creativity, in my opinion - whose source could be from THE God.
DTB I have always felt that taking refuge in "a" or "the" "GOD"
is a cop-out resorted to when one's power of reasoning meets
(temporarily) a "dead-end." Since creativity is your expression
of a selected drive, then what has creativity to say in this ?
If that does not provide an answer, what shall one look for?
Kym: It is such "dead-ends" that have plagued me all my life. I
want to know why I can't think around them. That is my drive, I
guess I would say, It is my desire to know with certainty. I
just won't "give-up." I have to find out what is the cause of
things? I am quite sure that vast Nature has answers, and these
I seek. I presume that Nature contains all and our Science is
developed and developing in the attempt to find out what rules
and laws Nature has laid down in specified areas. It is Nature
that is full of laws and guides all relationships. Karma is the
reaction of Nature to our individual and personal choices.
>What is excellence?
Excellence is a subjective human reaction. I consider Mozart to
epitomize
excellence in music - another may consider Bach to be the
expression of
excellence.
DTB Excellent examples and I love to listen to both of them, and
to some others too. But there is more than "subjectivity" in
this. As I understand it, this "subjective" relates to one's
personal reaction, and this may be shared, or not, with others.
But then I also see that everything in the world that is of the
nature of experience has to pass into the inner thought processes
of ourselves. I mean by that, that even the "objective" has to
become "subjective" for us to grasp and understand it.
These two ideas or words serve (to me) only to express the
difference between the visible and the invisible--between that
which only we can discuss with ourselves (again that curious
duality) and that which anyone can observe and derive conclusions
about. Does this make sense?
>Is >"Perfection" in any area possible?
No, not to me, because "perfection" declares finality. Nothing
can be
better than perfection. Perfection is a great big stop sign.
Once one
believes something is "perfect," the object of perfection remains
forever
stagnant.
DTB I agree and so "Perfection" ought to be qualified with the
word/idea of "relativity." No one is ever totally perfect, but
one can always strive to become more adept and perfect at
whatever one does ? OK so far ? The parameters of excellence
seem to be so vast that one life-time is too short to encompass
all. How about an immortal inner Self, that uses successive
bodies to learn through?
Would one's character and capacities (in general) , talents,
genius, or the reverse indicate what our efforts so far, have
produced? How do we get to know our Inner Self better ? So
relative perfection, might be only the "passing exam." [ In
passing below you ask about the Mind, which I say is 3-fold. In
what I just write, there is a curious duality here. There is the
One Self (as I call it) which does not change. It is the seat of
my "identity." I would use the word "Individuality." Then,
there is the 2nd Self, that which is embodied and uses the brain
and the body as its tools. This is the one that gets mixed up
with emotions and desires and passions, etc... To me, when I try
to choose, and think out the possible results of my choices in
the future, these 2 Selves discuss the subject and one or other
of them makes the resulting decision. The process can be
lightning fast or very slow.]
>Where do we secure >Inspiration?
>From dog, cats, loved ones, God, music, pain, poetry -
creativity is merely
inspiration fulfilled.
DTB But, fulfilled only for a while, since, as we live on, there
occur moments when our progress (as goal seeking) is seen to be
only relatively attained, and some further vista opens, No?
>What is Genius or Talent in some art or science or philosophy?
A genius is only a genius for a certain length of time.
Eventually,
someone will surpass the thought - "greater works." Genius-ness
is always
fluctuating, always changing. Talent is something that one can
be born
with or acquire, and it, too, is always in flux. A talented
pianist may
find him/herself unable to play as well as he/she did when he/she
were
younger. A talent can last a few years, a lifetime, or many
lifetimes.
DTB I recall Rubenstein saying that if he did not practice daily,
after 4 days he could hear the difference, and if he did not
practice for a week, Mrs. Rubenstein could hear the difference in
his piano playing. I used the ideas of talent and genius to
indicate a facility that long practice had built into ones
make-up. For instance, when I was 14 or 24, I could not have
written what I am saying or writing now. I have been dong a lot
of think-practice and trying to sharpen it with the 5 questions.
But that is personal and not a very good example.
>Those unusual faculties need to be reconciled with our usual
>endowment with reflective and anticipatory natures.
I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify?
DTB I think we always try to set goals to anything we do -- as in
this answer to you, trying to make myself as clear as possible.
Not to provoke, but to ask that you will go along with my way of
thinking, and if you find it obscure, you will tell me where and
how -- and of course you do that.
>While I would be one of the first to admit that the intertwining
>of the feelings and the mind is in all of us, I would also like
>to make sure what they are when separated
Why, Dallas? What would you do with the knowledge?
DTB Always test it, and try to share it with others who would
look at it independently and shoot holes in it when it goes
unreasonable. I think that any great University or academy
serves as a repository of thinking and examining Nature. In fact
one might say that Nature has it all figured out, and that we fit
into some aspect of Nature which accommodates us, and adjusts our
angularities with others' and tries for a continually dynamic
harmony. Not static, but always moving forward. One can learn a
lot, but if it is not shared, it is pretty useless, isn't it?
>and why they are so >mixed when we do our thinking or desiring ?
Because this mix is the foundation of "balance." One without the
other is
not a balance, but a one-sidedness. A half-life.
DTB So true.
>How is it that
>psychology makes these distinctions and Theosophy seems to add a
>wider dimension to their consideration?
Psychology is not interested in the metaphysical or spiritual -
it is not
part of the scientific criteria. Psychology wants to know how
the brain
works in the world. Theosophy, on the other hand, does claim the
link
between the brain, mind, and spiritual as part of its philosophy.
DTB And that I think is where psychology limits itself. But
fortunately there are some good psychologists who do not adopt
those limits. They are investigating the fringes where that
science in the art of living merges with other things. Analysis
has to give way to synthesis in an harmonious and dynamic LIVING
world. One might as well ask: Why is there anything? Why do I
exist? You might answer " I have an inexhaustible urge to
create." I admit that and still would ask: "Why?" and also
"Where does that come from?" And I am pretty sure that some
answers are there. But I do not know them, and only you are
close enough to find them for yourself.
>Finally, what power is it in us that enables us to change our
>desires and to vary them?
I'm getting quite redundant here, but I must answer that it is
creativity.
As we experience more and more, our desire to create or express
different
ideas tends to change. As we become exposed to more, we see
wider and
greater potentials for our expressions.
DTB Just as above.
>How is it that we can perceive areas of uncertainty ?
Uh, probably what is unknown or just raw fear. What makes one
uncertain is
the unknown and the unknown, to many, is fearful.
DTB Doesn't fear disappear when we have secured a view of the
parameters of that which faces us? could we live for even an
instant more if "fear" alone daunted us? what gives us any
confidence at all to continue living? What counterbalances "fear
?" Breathing the air and drinking water are both dangerous.
Anything we do is always novel for that instant. We are always
adventuring into the unknown and the inexperienced, every moment
of our life. Somehow, don't we rely on past experience, to be
able to cope with most new events and adventures? Not all are
unpleasant. What about strokes of "good fortune?" Do we deserve
them? [ Did you ever read Plato/s "THE LAWS " ? He seems to
cover this rather well there. ]
Where does trust and reliance arise unless it is in some sense
that we trust the general law of fairness and justice in nature
will also serve to protect and help us ? What is the memory of
our past experiences, but is that not an ally which reassures?
What is reassurance? How does it arise?
>Where is there some "stability" that makes this possible, so
that we can have a "dialog with ourselves ?"
Again, for me, since nothing is really "stable," it is my memory
that
provides stability. I remember how I dealt with something, I
remember how
I hate carrots, I remember how much my loved ones love me, I
remember that
scientists are working on cures, etc. . .this provides reference
which
leads to a sense of stability both within myself and the world.
DTB Agreed, But do you tolerate raw carrots? I know some who
can't stand them cooked? what about carrot cake? Where do you
get your Vitamin A from?
Memory is not emotion, but memory can be about an emotion.
>Where does that Power come from?
You got me there. . ..
>Is it an attribute of the REAL HUMAN BEING ?
I don't know what you mean by a "REAL HUMAN BEING."
DTB Essentially one who makes choices. We do this all the time
and perhaps we do not realise how important that is. To me
humanity resides in the possession and use of the mind-faculty.
I would rather a real human being as one who practices (or
rather, tries to practice) all the virtues.
>Is it possibly superior even to the Mind ?
Which "mind" are you referring to?
DTB I think that there are 3 aspects of the mind.
1. the Cold hard investigative type. Perhaps the astronomer or
the mathematician or of chemist and the physicist are types where
this is used. They want facts and knowledge. They desire to
demonstrate the Laws that rule the Universe and our environment.
2. The Mind that is involved in sentiment, emotions, pain and
pleasure, desire and a million other kinds of emotions relating
to one's ordinary daily life -- a thing that is ours, and is
operating all the time we are awake and making choices and
decisions. Essentially it is self-centered.
3. The mind that is moved by compassion, generosity, love,
altruism the desire to Protect the helpless, the young, and the
aged. It desires to learn, to know and to fit itself to be
better able to assist others. It is self-sacrificial -- not
"goody-goody," but very sincere, honest, truthful, and always
creative. If anything we might say that it tends towards
universals, seeking them and trying to make application of them
in its living.
>and see if you can help clear up some of my questions, please
Is this a double dog dare???
DTB Whatever that is -- you betcha. Lets get to trying it out.
Thanks for a good hour's work and thought Kym
Best wishes to you
Dal
Kym
---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=3Dtheos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
