Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00140)

Nov 13

Dear Kym:

Some notes below may help further

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=3D

-----Original Message-----
> From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net]
> Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 10, 1999 - Dallas

Dallas wrote:

>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?

I believe that reasoning is different from tenderness and love.
Each can
exist without the other.  And I do believe that, at times,
reasoning can
detract from tenderness.  For a being to have to engage, every
time, into
the reasons and logic behind why they feel tenderness toward
someone or
something risks turning the experience of tenderness into an
analytical
exercise rather than an experience of simple joy.  There are
times that
call for such self-examination, but to require a 'reason' behind
every
feeling of sentimentality or tenderness is, to me, a taking away
of what it
means to be "in the moment" of happiness.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	Not a "requirement" nut only an assist to correct
understanding of the feeling that is meant to be conveyed.
Internally when we read what another writes, do we not make an
analogy with our own memories and experiences ?  As I see it, our
"mind" does that.  But it is not aimed at depersonalizing the
"feelings" involved, only, in understanding them.

>DTB	Agreed -- but then, What is it that causes such divergence ?

Any number of things can cause a "divergence" of emotion or logic
into a
harmful manifestation:  a misunderstanding of the situation, a
misunderstanding of one's own or another's motives, another
emotion or
reason coming into play that distorts the original picture or
motive, or
simply using logic when emotion was called for or using emotion
when logic
was called for.  Anything and everything we do can "diverge"
because we are
not the only ones usually involved in the situation - we cannot
account for
nor predict the reactions and responses of other beings.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	Friendly analogy would assist, No?

>"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?

My apologies, Dallas, but until I can attempt to address these
questions, I
would like to understand what you mean by "one can substitute
for. .."
What do you mean in using the term substitute and who or what is
being
substituted?

=3D=3D=3DDTB	If one an switch one's mind so as to consider to consider
another viewpoint is it not "switching?"  The original idea
remains intact for reference, but the "What if ?" capacity can be
used as a substitution"  OK ?

>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.

For me, it is the story of the Demiurge; the creator of the
current global
forms (human, animal, planets, trees, flowers).  But the Demiurge
was
unable to infuse the material forms with "Manas" - thus, we were
given the
spark of the Most Divine, each of us a living god in this
physical shell.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	 Then the "Demiurge" is subordinate to one who provides
the "spark of the Most Divine."  Also it would seem that there
are those who can visualize (understand) both those positions.  I
would say that is because there is a continuous link between our
mind capacity and that which is its source, the "Most Divine" --
which to my mind is continually present and not separate from any
one of us, s it is the ALL, and the ETERNAL BACKGROUND.  In that
case the "Demiurge" would be responsible for the development of
the necessary "vehicles" (body, etc...) in which a "Mind" can
reside.

The passages also suggest that suffering is NECESSARY in order to
reach
Nirvana - I wonder if such a thing is true.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	I would wonder if that is true too.  Why should anyone
"suffer" for things that they did not start?  Does this imply
that there is a universal law of equity and fairness which no on
ought to transgress -- especially the "strong" in regard to the
"weak" ?  I think that Nature (the Most Divine being the highest
aspect of Nature) is very sensitive along those lines and seeks
to restore any broken harmony, by showing the one who breaks it
just how much others were affected by those actions.

Anyway, the crux of the passages, to me, is that we were created,
as all things, and that we have
the potential of all things.  The potential to become creators of
worlds of
our own, both here and other "places."  We can thank the Demiurge
for
desiring to create our forms, but as any child must to honor a
"parent", we
should become our own individuals and create our own "families"
and
"worlds."  The pages you cited discuss our ancestry, but also
tells us our
"future."  The human (and other beings, I personally believe) are
transitory forms which already possess everything necessary to
attain
"Nirvana," but when and how we do so is up to us.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	Of what value is "Nirvana?"  "Stop the train I want to get
off !"  Is that it, and if so, why ?  Logically I don't think
that is quite possible.  I don't think that we are ever to
completely "balance the books."

>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."

The reason, in my opinion, is that we are not satisfied unless we
explore.
Experiencing things helps us learn - lead by our desire to create
ourselves
and  our world.  We are part of a cycle, and being in Motion we
are
prompted to examine and involve ourselves in both physical,
emotional, and
spiritual experiences.  In a word, it is our NATURE.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	 I agree on exploration, but if I can find a map I would
try to make use of it.  I am a cartographer and love maps,
whether they be of physical things or mental ones.  They have
some value in that they show outlines of the possible future.

>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 ?"

Are you asking why it is startling?  If that is your inquiry, I
can only
answer that the shifting and adjusting of one's paradigms are
usually
startling, for that involves the movement of one's foundation.
It is a
natural reaction to be startled at newness - and we can choose to
accept or
refuse a new idea or concept.  But for someone NOT to experience
discomfort
or some kind of reaction to a new idea is someone that has not
been
involved in putting together a puzzle of "self and the world."
To casually
accept anything that comes one's way is, to me, a lack of just
plain
passion and seriousness.  This conclusion of mine, though, is not
one I am
more than convinced as being correct - there may be very
passionate people
who do not experience any reaction to new ideas, but, still, I
doubt it.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	I love what you say -- it is exactly the way I also
approach those things.

>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)

Ok.  But I do not believe that desire "borrows" from the mind
faculties for
memory and anticipation.  I believe that everything is a
"package" - mind
itself cannot do without desire nor desire without mind.  I know
that
desire is used in a different context in Theosophy, but I think
Theosophy
errs in doing so.  There is nothing base in desiring something -
it is part
of creativity.  One cannot even reason without a desire to do so.
Even the
Most Divine had a desire to create, and further, to infuse the
creations of
other gods with the spark that these creations would not have had
without
intervention.  Apparently, the Most Divine desires an equality -
a shared
mutuality with all.  Without the "drive" of desire, nothing would
exist.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	 Again I am with you on that.  The "package" in this case
is the combo:
mind + desire  =3D  a cause for thought or action.

>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?

That's a weighty question - personally, politically, socially,
spiritually.
 I do not believe that life should be preserved for the "sake of
life."
Since I am an advocate of the right for a woman to choose whether
or not to
terminate or carry a pregnancy, I have to admit that some lives
take
precedence over other lives.  I do believe a person has a right
to end
their own life if they so choose, although I feel sad when it is
a young
person for I feel it is an act of desperation rather than careful
thought.
On the other hand, I do not believe in the death penalty, unless
the
convicted person wants to die.  In short, at this time, there
really is no
consistent and fool-proof method on how to judge life and its
quality.  If
every being were to disappear off the face of the earth, Life
itself would
still go on - so Life is not threatened by our death.  It may be
that our
own "growth" may be temporarily stunted, but ultimately, even our
"growth"
speed and manner is up to us.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	Suppose that "death" as a threat to one's continuity as an
individual were removed?  would that not be a great plus in ones'
approach to things ?

Remember the classic boat problem?  It asks what you would do if
you were
in a life boat and unless you tossed a few people overboard, the
entire
boat would sink, killing all.  How would you choose?  What
criteria would
you use?  You are not allowed to throw yourself out, for you are
the only
one who can navigate and control the boat - but you must choose
who will
live and who will die.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	A good poser -- I had not encountered that.  Must think it
over.  But the problem presupposes that ones' fate is
pre-ordained and known to the "navigator."  Could that be a sure
thing?

There is also the question of why have ANYTHING at all?  Why even
have
humanity?  Is the existence of humanity so important that all the
suffering, joys, mistakes, lessons learned, etc., are worth it in
the end?
I wonder.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	 I have no pat answer for that.  But I observe that we are
all in the middle of the situation together, and we ought to be
able to "think" ourselves out of it.  With our experience, is
there anything analogetic which would help?   I would take time
to analyze and make sure of what my capacities are, and what were
the areas of present ignorance,  then I would seek to fill in
those information gaps, and take the best way of doing so that is
available. [ This is what I was referring Randy to. ]

>Is the idea of reincarnation incorrect?

Not to me - reincarnation seems necessary and, dare I say it?,
logical.

>Is there no permanency to man's existence and the
>goals that she/he selects?  If death ends all, then why set any?

No, there is not permanency to our existence, for there will come
a time, I
believe, in which the human form will be obsolete.  But death
does not end
anything except the existence of a particular form.  Since I
believe that
the number of forms possible are innumerable, there will always
be another
form in which a "soul" can enter in order to further its
education.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	Again I agree.  But whether the form alters or not, the
capacity to think makes us "human" and not the shape of our
bodies, surely ?

>How are pain, illness and accidents to be explained?  To say
>"they happen"  -- is that enough of an explanation?

To say "they happen" is not enough, and can even be callous - but
that
doesn't mean it is not true.  But, having said that, I do not
believe that
pain, illness, and accidents "just happen."  The reasons are so
complex
that I don't believe anyone can really, genuinely, "trace back" a
cause for
an event - it could result from a lifetime of long ago.  Who
knows.  But
illness, pain, and accidents can serve as teaching mechanisms -
we can
learn patience, compassion, and a reverence for life from them -
but, I
still wonder if such "evil" is really necessary.  I think it is
possible
that we can learn compassion, love, and such from other
classrooms.  But
most philosophies, including Theosophy, tend to disagree and I
haven't yet
formed a argument solid enough to support my belief.  It's just a
nagging
"feeling" I have. . ..

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DDTB	Again I fully agree with what you say.  The idea=
 (or
teaching) of Karma seems to outline all you state.  While we may
not be able to trace our "pain" etc. to a specific cause, if
"Nature" is just and true in response to our impulses, then we
are always facing the results of some earlier choice?

>Why is it that the protective instinct is so strong?

Because something has to sustain a form until the form learns
enough to
choose whether or not to sustain itself.  There may be no need
for the
form's existence, but only time will tell, and if the form
doesn't have
something built in to 'keep it going' in order to find out if the
form is
necessary, the "gods" will never know.  The experiment must have
some time
in existence to observe what "purpose" it can serve.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	Agreed.  And yet, it nags at me that there is something in
me which is "permanent" and on which the experiences, pleasant or
the reverse are registered for future use.

>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?

Not necessarily, for in order to "learn" something, we do not
necessarily
need to learn the "why."  But as a philosophy major, I too share
your wish
to learn the reasons "why."  But I have found that sometimes
learning the
"why" doesn't always aid in understanding or wisdom.  Sometimes,
the "why"
can get in the way - what if we don't like the "why?"

=3D=3D=3DDTB	May I interrupt your thought there?  to "like" the Why --
if you introduce "like" there then I would say you are
introducing a "feeling" and adding it to the fact.  That is why I
try to dissect the "feeling" from the event -- even if that is
called a "mind-action."  Then in that case (and in most cases) we
always have feeling + thought acting together.

For example, what if the "why" turned out to be a vengeful god
that just liked playing games -
how would that help us to learn compassion?  Instead, we may
become bitter
and resentful - loathe our parenthood and ourselves, believe we
are from a
"bad seed."  I do not believe, of course, that this is the case,
but I
offer this imaginary "why" as an attempt to show that knowing the
"reason"
behind something may or may not be conducive to Compassion.  A
further
question might be: are we READY for the ANSWER to our seeking of
the "why?"

=3D=3D=3DDTB	My opinion is that e are always ready to sand the answers,
no matter how distasteful they might be (in terms of our
'liking')  The fact is 'reality.'  The liking is a reaction, and
that can hurt.  I say, if we can anticipate "hurt" as a result of
choice, our choosing would improve.  You might ask me is there is
any way in which we can make "better" and more "pleasant
resulting" choices.  I would quote the Buddha who said "Cease
from evil.  Do good.  that is the Way."  I am of the opinion (and
have observed in myself) that the "voice of Conscience" operates
to warn us of potential problems.  Theosophy claims this to be th
e voice of our experience in past lives (and in the earlier years
of this one) which cautions us not to repeat unpleasant errors of
decision.

>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.

I do believe that there are those out there who truly manifest
altruism.  I
believe in altruism and I believe it exists.  However, I
postulate that
most people on the planet still perform what seems "altruistic"
acts due to
other motives besides pure altruism.  This does not, in any way,
"cheapen"
their good actions, but I think that many look upon good acts
with the
additional thought of how it can help their own self.  Churches
give out
food to the poor, but require the receivers to listen to sermons.
The
giving out of food is admirable, but it also has the motive of
bringing in
members.  A person may arrange a community project to paint or
fix up the
houses of the elderly in their neighborhood, but they may also
have as part
of the motive the concept of heightening property values.  Again,
I do not
believe that the "questionable motives" lessen the greatness of
the helping
actions, just that the pure concept of altruism is not the
underlying
factor.  Did Ghandi act out of pure altruism, or did he, down
deep, hope
that such an act would further his OWN spiritual and historical
growth?  I
believe that those who were never recorded in the history books,
such as
your friends who died in the cause, may have been acting out of a
purer
altruism than Ghandi may have been.  He knew he was a leader, he
knew his
acts would be remembered - your friends did not have that
guarantee.  But,
again, I could be blowing smoke here.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	I really cannot answer for Gandhi's motives (although I
met and spoke with him as a youngster, and was much impressed
then with his quiet dignity and wisdom) but you are right in
saying that in many cases the "goodness" that someone might
espouse, may be tainted with some degree of self-advantage
seeking.  Real Altruism is rare, and would have to be accompanied
with deep unselfish wisdom to be absolutely pure.

>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.

I agree, that's why I stated that I believed that NATO did
encompass
altruism in stopping the Serbian army.

>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 ?

The Serbs chose to NOT "live and let live" and suffered the
consequences of
their actions.  It is the nature of humans to fight back in some
way when
threatened.  If one wants to call it "nature's law" than so be
it, but one
cannot act aggressively towards another and not at least expect
that there
may be some reaction.  The Serbs chose to take the gamble and
eventually
lost.  Unfortunately, the Kosovars and Bosnians lost even more
during the
"game" between Serbia and the rest of the world.  The rest of the
world was
in danger of losing their "souls" - but rose up just in the nick
of time.
But still, we suffered some spiritual damage due to our
hesistation.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	So true.

>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."

It does seem that a dictatorship can, for a while, reduce
violence.  The
tensions were squashed temporarily - some lost their lives,
suffered
torture, and other horrendous things under Tito, but the
widespread
devastation we just witnessed probably would not have happened
under Tito.
However, it is impossible for humans to exist in that kind of
state of
being - expression, creativity, different religious beliefs,
etc., all make
it impossible for a dictorship to ever work in the long run.  A
benevolent
dictator would probably last the longest, but eventually, that
too would
falter.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	If the underlying hatred and anger that is so
unnecessarily carried forward and adopted (without realizing the
consequences) produces such horrors when "restraint" is
withdrawn, then the "lesson" --  to live and let live -- still
has to be learned.

>>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.....? "

No, Dallas, because if that is what makes one human, are those
who are
autistic or mentally impaired non-human?  An autistic child does
not have
the power to reason, nor does a "normal, healthy" infant have the
power to
imagine "what if."  It cannot be those faculties you state that
make us
unique and human, for it says that neither infants or the
mentally impaired
are human.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	I am not sure about that,  There have been examples where
such impaired ones have been reached and their "humanity" drawn
our and given expression.  Imagine what a horrible trap it is for
a mind to be thus imprisoned.  One wonders what must be the cause
of such a situation in any one life.  [ I am trying to remember
the name of the famous (born deaf, dumb and blind)woman whom I
met many years ago along with her companion and teacher when they
visited India.]
(I must be having a "senior moment.") That is an outstanding
example of what I mean.

>But I would also ask if one creates, then does one's
>ensuing responsibility cease?

Of course not - hence, the Demiurge shares some responsibility
for the
suffering and pain each sentient being endures.

=3D=3D=3DDTB	But, are we not all part of the Demiurge?  How would you
isolate it from us and vice-versa?  Surely the Universe is ONE ?
If so the Demiurge is an executive agent for a section of the
evolutionary program.  At least that is what I understand of the
matter.  All mind-beings are immortals because of the fact that
the mind cannot be obliterated (although a body can certainly be
destroyed, and the course of the mind thereafter is conjectural,
reincarnation being one  of the options).

>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?

Yes to the first question - No, to the second.  After a person
reaches an
"age" - which can differ according to the person - we are
required to let
go.  We cannot continue to care for a person in some particular
ways or we
will hinder their growth.  For example, a parent who pays the
damages of a
destructive act of their 30 year old son or daughter is NOT
caring for them
- they are ensuring that they remain dependent, irresponsible,
and immature.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DDTB	An example of "Tough Love."  But entirely correct, =
I
also believe.

Dallas, not to be rude, but I will address the rest of your post
in the
next couple of days - my post is getting too long!  But I will
get to it -
if you still want me to, that is, after reading this one.

=3D=3D=3D=3DDTB	 that's not rudeness but well understood.  You have given
back so much and I appreciate it.   I too have time limits.  But
this is most enjoyable.

'bye.  and thanks	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