|
|
| [MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Apr 27, 2001 11:13 AM
by dalval14
|
Thursday, April 26, 2001 Dear
Mauri: ( be you nameless -- yet,
YOU ARE ) You have
as many abilities or (if you prefer) shortcomings as anyone else. We are all immortals on the same
general pilgrimage, and we advance or retard ourselves according to our desires
or aspirations. You are whatyou
have made of yourself, and I in my way am the product of my own decisions and
efforts. So we meet on a level field,
and any differences or advantages are only apparent, they are not cast in steel
(I mean fixed forever). Viewed
Theosophically you, like everyone else is an ETERNAL PILGRIM, which (being a
spiritual ENTITY) has launched a reflection of ITSELF on this compound Earth
and in the focus of intelligence that we all are as PERSONALITIES, (the Lower Minds, some call them:images,
the evanescent ones, the embodied minds).
This can be seen as one MONAD which is ahead of the others in terms of
experience, will and the desire to become, itself, omniscient -- it recognizes
its SOURCE (the Spiritual Soul or ATMA / BUDDHI intuitively). It also recognizes its limitations due
to association with matter in its various levels and planes of manifestation. This fact causes us to recognize
several identities in ourselves which, however are linked by ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.
Thisis
the Intelligence in you and me which is now striving to acquire permanent and
sure knowledge of our INNER SELVES, as well as of our present transient
environment, where the physical constantly changes with time and space, while
the immaterial and permanent cannot be “felt” with any of our physical senses,
but, where our Intelligence says it requires such a center to explain its
existence. You can eliminate
(mentally) everything in yourself except the WILL TO FIND OUT. Hence the questions. But I say
that the process of finding out has to be codified and built on by YOU.
Otherwise all the exchanges are a waste of energy. WHAT DO YOU GET THAT IS VALID AND PERMANENT? In
reviewing all our exchanges what strikes you as useful and applicable to YOUR
SEARCH ? I would
say that recognizing the duality of our own make-up and consciousness is one of
the more important aspects of our study.
Now you find out why. If you can
ask questions, then part of you is a stable platform on which you assemble the
answers. Find it. Best
wishes, Dal ========================================== -----Original Message----- RE:
Evolution and change wrote partly: <<The most difficult of things is to FIND YOURSELF. I do not mean the evanescent and fleeting personality which is
only a reflection of the INNER SELF, but I mean the INNER SELF, in you,
that continues seeking and asking.>> =========
Yes, as I'm finding out more and more. I seem to want to
continue to babble on and on mentally (not verbally so much), but I
don't seem to want to put a sock in it. We seem to be somewhat like a Laurel and Hardy of Theosophy inthe
sense that you often seem to be saying, in effect: "Another fine
mess you got us into!" and I seem to be responding by scratching my head,
wondering how I managed to do that just by wondering about things. As for "Mauri Hart", since I don't really seem to know
who I really am, you have my permission to call me that, if you like (even
though that name is foreign to me). Do you know who you really
are? Do names have much to do with who we really are?
We could say that, name wise, we "really are" whoever we decide
to name ourselves from time to time, I suppose, to some extent . . . possibly .
. . . . . . . . ? Come to think of it, since this Theos-1 list seems less
restricted than BN lists, seems to me you and Leon and etc now have a freer
forum to express yourselves about my shortcomings, etc, Or: let me know
your disdain or whatever by totally ignoring my posts, if you see that as more
appropriate. On the other hand, Dallas, I really appreciate your posts because
you seem to be able to excellently express (unlike myself) a certain
potentially more-popularly understandable aspect of Theosophy, I seem to like
to think. In strong contrast to your posts, it would seem
that there are few indications suggesting that my posts are . . .
"less misleading" than yours? Seems that my posts arenot
very successfully getting across the kind of meanings that I saw myself putting
into them. But I can't just change because of that: I yamwhat
I yam, as Popeye used to say, I think (did he say that?). As I see it,
true Theosophical objectives are in keeping with pursuing meaning or some
aspect of meaning, at whatever level we may be in. So if I fail to
communicate my "intended" aspects of meaning . . . well, what canI
say? We try, eh?
Cutting this off short, for now. More later, maybe. Mauri |