Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00076)

July 4th 2004



Dear M. and Friends:



Many thanks for the response -- valuable. Good thoughts and analysis, I
think.



As to "Will the real Dallas stand up ?" 



Let me tell you of a talk I had many years ago with a wise friend. I will
try to reconstruct it from memory. 



I was asking him about the reason why "wisdom" was so difficult to get.



He looked at me in a very keen way, and asked: 



"Who are you?" I said I was "Me" the "Thinker."



"Can you change your thoughts?" He asked. "Certainly," I replied. 



Then, said he: "You are not the "Thinker" are you? You use and direct it."
I had to agree. 



Next he asked : "Do you have desires and emotions? Are you those?"



I answered, saying that as I could change those I was their "controller." 



"Good," he said. So you (the Real "You") are not the emotions, or the
desires or even the Thinker. But, you can control them. How is that done
by you?" 



My answer was that if I saw a better way or a higher reason, I could do that
by an act of interior will. 



"What is your 'will' ?" He next asked.



I answered that I did not know beyond the fact that I was able to see an
alternative and then, I could choose to make (or take) a new direction of
thought and personal design. It was a power I could use but not describe
yet. Also, I added, one has to know how do I discern "good" from "evil?"



He then said: "Let us set that last question aside for a while. What is
your name?" 



I answered that I, myself, the personality that I am, bears the current
name: "Dallas." But as this personality, as I looked at it from within
myself, could be changed, the "Real "Me" had no "name" but was most
definitely 'there.'



He then said: "So there you as you sit by me, have an example of one of the
aspects of your own "Real Me" -- that can act, consider and treat the other
parts (emotions and mind) as objects to be analysed." You have a "Master"
and its "tool," don't you?"



My answer was: "I think we all do, it but not all of us are aware of this
kind of distinction -- that we are, and do. Is a knowledge of how to be a
"Master" of ones' "lower self," and then do this, and also, when to use this
power, "wisdom?" He did not answer but paused expectantly, so.



I continued: "The ordinary, visible aspect of myself (and others) can show
how the inner Self does the reading, thinking, and analysing, while other
activities, such as eating, sleeping, walking, writing, and everything else
connected with active life on this plane of physical living we call our
Earth and Universe is done through the agency of the "outer self." Should I
call this my "Lower Self?" Or my "Lower Mind?"



"I don't think a name matters much, but I agree it is subordinate to the
"Real Me" in you (and in all of us), and it occasionally tries to "go its
own way." What it does, and why it is there, are important, Don't you think
so? What else have you observed?" asked my friend.



"I have observed that although I make resolves to do "good," there is an
aspect of myself that desires pleasure, leisure, indolence, distraction,
excitement, or even carelessness, and while I can see that those are selfish
and isolate me from others, they are strong, and at times they overcome my
will to do what I innately know is "right." Why is this?"



"Well, to recognize that there is a "right" and a "wrong" area is important,
but trying to find out what makes them so is even more important? And this
is what we are trying to do," he replied. "Perhaps," he added, "a view of
the Law of the Universe and of Nature acting in and through us and our Earth
is what is needed." WE all agree that we could not be alive in these bodies
of ours if universal laws did not continually operate to support them."



I continued: "But even this exterior me (shall I call it a "tool," or a
"robot ?") with some independence of its own, has an inner life of -- its
thoughts and its emotions and desires. It has also its hopes, its
aspirations and ideals. 



I think: "It is as a form, or possibly a series of forms (like Chinese
boxes, each inside the others) made up of substances, physical and
infra-physical (shall I call these as I perceive them: astral, emotional,
mental, and of the nature of 'Wisdom' ?) They are all cooperative with each
other, and each affects the rest. We are a kind of miniature Universe in
ourselves!"



My friend looked at me keenly and said: 



"So, are we to consider that we are a kind of UNIT that is just now living
in and using a duality? - You have said: "we have the physical and the
non-physical within? We also have a great mixture of the "good," the "bad,"
and the mediocre, in our composition as characters?" 



Then, does not our investigation and question change? Why are we so
complex? How does it happen we (the "Real Me") has this varied structure
of forms and materials? What are they composed of? Where did it gather
them from?" If the "Real Me" is One, then the "rest" are an enormous
collection of forms and intelligences: atoms, molecules, cells, and other
structures -- especially those that are in the nature of force fields
interacting on other levels of matter, interior to us. How do emotions
interact with thoughts? How does "selfishness" oppose "the 'wisdom' of a
collective WHOLE ?"



I answered after a pause for thought: "But within and behind that "name"
and "my present heredity, education, and all the labels that might be used
to define this temporary abode, is the real "Me." 



And, although it has no name, it has a 'presence.' It is an Entity, and
cannot be eliminated. I call it the "Witness." And sometimes, "My Higher
Self." That indeed makes, roughly, two of us in one body?" But we are
friends, I (as the lower self and the lower mind) have to do all the
physical and mental work -- and the decision making, while my 'friend the
"Higher Self" ' watches and is available on request for advice. It is a kind
of silent but wise Tutor."



Let me think a little deeper: "Do you think that my desires and wants
conflict with Wisdom? Can the attributes of "wisdom" be found or
described?"



My friend answered: "I think you are a bit hasty. We can discuss that
later (Just as Arjuna does in the BHAGAVAD GITA with Krishna.) The last
question was "What substance or material makes up these forms and
qualities?" 



I thought for a moment. 'The manifested universe is made up of countless
"Monads" of conjoined "Spirit / Matter" entities said to be immortal. They
are (in evolution as we now are in) passing through a kind of "school" where
every step progresses logically from all the earlier ones.' 



'Every experience enables them to acquire ever increasing degrees of
intelligence, and independence. If that is the case, then those forms
(emotional, mental wise-form, etc.) are all constituted of billions of
'monads.' They aggregate around Monads which have more experience and are
themselves working in the stage where Mind is investigated with a view to
its improvement. In this case I am a Monad who has tremendous
responsibilities - to them -- as well as to my brother Monads all around who
are humanity - and also, to the greater Nature and Universe of which I am a
living part.'



I offered this reasoning to my friend, who nodded his head. He then said:



"You could say this, could you not? "I as the personal man, the
Kama-manasic brain thinker, recognize my personal limitations in the light
(however dimly perceived) of a superior and better Individuality -- an
"Immortal" who from time to time uses this personality without violating any
of its prerogatives or responsibilities. It's like a dear and trusted friend
who assists and helps. It has my entire respect."



"How does that work?"



"First, as brain-mind personality, I have to admit that I have great
limitations. But to counter those I have equally great potentials - as I am
a part of the Universe, I share in its potencies." 



"I also admit that I have a number of desires, wishes, likes and dislikes.
I can perceive areas where there is (without going into details) great
improvement needed. Such being the case, I can impersonalize my lower
brain-mind and ask where improvement is needed the most."



"I can add: that I come to the conclusion that I need more knowledge of the
laws of nature, and greater power to visualize the results of such actions I
choose to make, and words I choose to use."



I nodded in agreement. He continued:



"What then, would be a simple way of expressing this? First we need to
develop our inherent integrity. It is fearlessness. Also, Honesty.
Fairness. Readiness to look into the basis of any event or situation, and
answer on that basis any question that arises. This means impersonalizing.
Universalizing.

It means making of 'virtue' our only guide in living. It means to think as
though: I am a member of a brotherhood, and every one else depends on my
doing the "right thing." 



I interrupted in agreement and asked if I could continue what he offered.
He nodded a 'yes.' 



I then said: "Applying what I have understood of Karma and its operations.
Considering that all of us are but the images (on this material plane) of
immortal Beings who have been here at work for aeons, and will continue to
do so all together." "In short, every virtue that is discussed and explained
by say, the Buddha, or Krishna, or Jesus, needs to be brought into my
personal basis for action to the extent that I am able to do so."



I then asked myself and thinking, I said aloud: "Is this bragging or
advertising? No. I simply answer what you evoke. I know that all I am
saying is that I am trying to live and indicate the best kind of life I wish
I could consistently live moment by moment. 



Is this a confession? Yes and no. Of what good is it? Only as an example
of aspiring to live a more human life -- something that we all can do if we
set our minds to it."



My wise friend then said: "Rudyard Kipling wrote a story named KIM. In it
this youth was called by his young companions: "Little friend of all the
world." I have always thought the title was inspiring."



We can use as a motto a single word: TRY.



There ends my memory and narrative.



Perhaps you might secure something interesting from it.



Best wishes,



Dallas



================================





-----Original Message-----
From: M
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 3:51 PM
To: 
Subject: re "exoteric/esoteric," Dallas and ...





Dallas wrote: << You might say, for any 

one person, that there is an enormous 

amount of information that belongs to 

Nature>>



I tend to see "belongs to Nature" as a 

reference to "karma."



<<in all her many departments and of 

which we are quite unaware in this 

single life-time of experience. We only 

seem to acquire a portion of Nature's 

secrets and we may anticipate there are 

many more available, >>



So ...



<<Now what could the key to those be? 

If Nature is as careful and sentient 

so as to support with her life, 

simultaneously, the life of so many 

beings, then one might suppose that we 

are in receipt of just as many faculties 

and abilities as we can use with a fair 

share, benefit and profit to all. Now, 

if we should abuse and misuse our 

faculties, what happens? We find in 

most cases, that the ability to employ 

them diminishes and disappears. How? By 

our exaggeration of one or more aspects 

of personal power, we bring disharmony 

around us (selfishness, isolation, 

tyranny) and, to correct this, and 

revert to HARMONY for all, Nature 

withdraws certain supports from us and 

redistributes them. We think

this is suffering restriction, pain and 

sometimes disease for us, as a personal 

being, usually. >>



Seems to me that there's lots of 

different definitions for "helpful use" 

and "abusive use." I don't see how we 

could have short cuts to "helpful use" 

by measuring the quality of that "help" 

against anything other than our innate 

sense. I don't see how "Masters" 

("anonymous" ones or otherwise) can do 

anything other than offer suggestions. 

In other words, I suspect that there 

are certain kinds of literal 

interpretations of Theosophy that can be 

very misleading about "help" and lots of 

things. Not that some "good" things 

might not come out of some of such 

interpretations, as well, maybe.



<<Supposing we were indeed Immortals, 

and were able to carry interiorly a 

permanent record of all our past 

experiences in earlier personalities? 

How would they manifest today in our 

make-up in terms of capacity, character, 

talents -- or their lack ? Why are some 

of us impelled to learn all we can. And 

others just "can't be bothered ?" Why 

are we such an "interesting mixture of 

talents and ignorances and some positive 

dislikes?>>



"Karma" comes to mind. Quotes per 

whatever "karmic/interpretive tendencies 

re one's definition of 'karma.' "



<<I think we can safely say that our 

capacity (a "stability" in us) to 

distinguish change is the linking factor 

in each case, and we the REAL PERSON 

INSIDE. It is able at will (How's that 

?) to choose, and attempt to direct 

these functions.>>



I tend to suspect that such as "REAL" 

and "REALER" are "karmic/mayavic," and 

that some students of Theosophy might 

have some interest in transcending such 

notions. Though apparently there are 

stages "along the way to Beness," in a 

sense, that might be seen in various 

"REALER" terms. Happy staging, Dallas.



<<But, inasmuch as there is a "real 

person" in each of us that uses the 

faculties of hearing and seeing,>>



Could the "real" Dallas please stand up 

... Not that one might not opt to define 

"reality" in terms of "person/self" re 

whatever "realer prompts," I guess, in 

some sense ...



<<the difference is a rate of 

vibration in terms of the sensitivity of 

the organs of sensation we use (eyes and 

ears), and the difference, we notice in 

each other, of the capacity to interpret 

the structure of colors and shapes in 

pictures and symbols, vs. tones,

rhythms, and melodies (in sounds). In 

either case there are cacophonies where 

some more perfect harmony is evidently 

distorted or deliberately

destroyed. [We can ask how that happens 

later.] In such a case the capacity to 

discriminate between harmony and chaos 

evidences (to me) another faculty : 

that of discernment of beauty, harmony, 

law and their opposite. [Consider our 

common acceptance as "art" of pictures, 

sculpture, buildings, music (?) today as 

compared with those of 100 to 300 years 

ago. Why such a change? Is it better, 

or what?]>>



Words, concepts like "karma" and 

"perspective" come to mind.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]