Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00169)

Nov 15

Dear ktinka:

Some notes below in answer please

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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

-----Original Message-----
> From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl]
> Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 1:57 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:08:05 -0800 "W. Dallas TenBroeck"
<dalval@nwc.net> wrote:
Dallas:
> In regard to the use of technical terms, like Atma -- the
 "labeling" was used because I was under the impression
that all those (or most of those) who exchanged ideas over
this study group had read TEH KEY TO THEOSOPHY by HPB and
knew those basic "labels" and what they meant.>

Well, yes Dallas, but still, to read the signpost (in this
case the Key to Theosophy) is not the same as having
actually reached the goal, and how can we know atma (the
highest principle) unless having reached the goal?

DTB	The Idea of a supreme, (SPIRIT ?) portions of which are
EVERYWHERE in the Universe is not to me repugnant.  It gives an
idea of completeness in potential.  The contrast of "form" or
"matter" is also necessary as we deal with them all the time, and
we live in a "form."  The question of "consciousness" and its
many aspects is a continuous one for me, and I suppose for
others, too.

One may envisage the end of our day (today) but as you say it is
only when we review before sleeping all that we have done, that
we realise that Night is upon us and Sleeping as an experience is
again upon us.  Can we be sure of awakening the same tomorrow?
Our experience seems to indicate a continuity.  Is this not in
some way pointing to a "goal" in a broader sense?

So that is why I am a bit hesitant (hope the spelling is correct)
in assuming I understand what you mean when you write about
atma. In fact I am assuming that our ways of thought are so
different, that allthough we base ourselves on the same
literature (something I don't think we should assume about
Kym for instance), we still understand that literature very
differently. I am trying to talk to you, not Blavatsky,
which is why I build in questions like: what do you mean
when you use the word atma? But you explain that very
clearly in this post (at least to my understanding).

> DTB	I agree with what you say, Katinka:  "emotions + thought"
is
> what I call  Kama (desires and passions principle) PLUS Manas
(the Mind
> principle).  The combination is referred to by HPB as the
"Lower
> Mind" or the "Embodied Mind."

=3D=3D=3D	DTB	But I think we try to dialog all the time with HPB.  I
don't think she is "dead and gone"  I think she is quite alive,
though in a different shape and place perhaps, but every time
that someone thinks of her, her work and tries to understand it,
she feels the "pull" and responds in some way that is reasonable
and acceptable to the recipient or the inquirer.  Fair ?

Katinka :
Yes, I know, but using western words is perhaps a better
idea on this list, because it seems to me that the
theosophical words are not popular here and with a reason.

=3D=3D=3D	DTB	Well, we are limited to the use of words that we
hopefully use as the same basis for communicating ideas -- it
wold be so much quicker if we could think mind-to-mind.  But
writing has the advantage of giving us time to be more careful in
what we say, I think
-----------------------

Dallas:
> Cosmically, or individually, there is "desire" as a cause for
> thought and mind-action.

katinka:
Yes, I agree. We might conclude that thought should think
and that emotion should fire the thought and the action..

Dallas:
> At this point I would still say:  What is it in us that
 is able to look at both the mind (thinking) and the
emotions (feeling, desire, passions) and apparently
detached from either ?
 It is this One Consciousness which is derived from the
"ray of the One spirit, the ATMA" which is resident in each
of us and forms the undying basis of our existence.>

Oke, got you.

Dallas:
> DTB	I try not to indulge in just "labeling" to no purpose --
but
> as I said above I had assumed that we were all familiar with
what
> HPB wrote at least in the KEY to THEOSOPHY.
Katinka

you define Atma beautifully above, so my question has been
answered.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D	DTB	So glad,  thanks -- great fun  -- exchange i=
s most
valuable
 			Best wishes,

			Dal

---------------------------

with best wishes,
Katinka
----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl

---
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