Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00236)

Dear Nigel 

Thank you for your response and encouraging words. 

You write, "It is always worth examining the nature of these 
experiences, especially if there is an emotional aspect attached to 
the experience. Our personality loves to feel 'nice' and of 
course 'right' about these matters."

These words ring very truly to me. Our personality or desire 
driven "lower" ego, as we sometimes refer to it in Theosophy, is a 
powerful system of energy which manifests initially as desire for 
itself. This energy of desire which supplements and can supercede the 
earlier energies of instinct, takes many forms including the desire 
for security, power and pleasure. In its form as pleasure or 
feeling "nice", this is something to which we might all readily 
identify. In its form as security and power it can be recognisable 
but it can also be subtle and inconspicuous to the unwary or unaware. 
In these expressions the "lower" egoic personality can be largely 
unconscious of its motivations which apparently arise, as you allude 
in another posting, from skandhas and social conditioning.
One of the ego's "power" manifestations as you say concerns the 
desire to be "right." A sense of being "right" can bring feelings of 
security and stability to the personality. Many academics and 
intellectuals with whom I have made acquaintance have presented with 
considerable insecurities of personality. In studying a subject or 
subjects in great depth they can be attempting to compensate for 
these fears by being "right" with their knowledge. Some even go to 
great lengths by finding something where they cannot be 
proven "wrong." Atheists and cynics often fall into this category. I 
once had a long conversation with a learned gentleman who saw only 
the worst in politics. To him, all politicians were solely concerned 
with power and prestige. Having worked with a number of politicians I 
knew this to be only partly correct. Some were very concerned with 
the plight of the underprivileged and worked tirelessly for them. To 
this gentleman however, he believed they were assisting only for 
their own ends. This position is, of course, unarguable. He felt very 
secure in finding a position where he could not "lose." He was most 
pleased when people finally recognised the futility of the discussion 
with him. He rested in the "nice" and "powerful" perception of the 
apparent security of "rightness."
Interestingly, fence-sitters, or those unprepared to commit to one 
thing or another can also create elaborate systems of thought 
guaranteed to safeguard their ego's terror of insecurity, failure or 
being "wrong."
It seems these and many other manifestations of personality can arise 
from the unresolved issues of a damaged and painful childhood and 
early adult-hood, which to me highlights and validates your quote 
from Socrates. Indeed, as we tread the initial stages of the 
Theosophical spiritual path, that of ego-detachment, we can begin to 
discover our "lower" ego's motivations and understand them more for 
what they are. During this process we can begin to make decisions to 
proceed as we consciously choose rather than simply reacting from 
instinctual and/or often unconscious, programmed desires.       

In saying the above, we perhaps need to take care not to over-analyse 
anything, including our egoic personality itself. 
The sense of affinity you and others have mentioned can be valid and 
real, as attested by countless mystics, and perhaps should be trusted 
as much if not more than our simple, analytic intellect. 
As a wise person once told me, you don't find the essence of a rose 
by tearing it apart.

Thank you too for your recent postings. It's always valuable for me 
to have more members in this group sharing their ideas and 
perspectives.

Kind regards
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nigel_healy" <nigelhealy@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel C,
> I think this is a very important point you make here: 
> "The use of "personal" experience as our ultimate 
> determinant for that which is "right" or "wrong" can be 
> a highly flawed process."
> 
> Cass and I have mentioned in recent postings 
> experiencing an instant affinity with particular 
> teachings/philosophies, which may be a reconnecting 
> with the Ancient Wisdom - or, indeed, may be 
> something else.  It is always worth examining the nature 
> of these experiences, especially if there is an emotional 
> aspect attached to the experience.  Our personality loves 
> to feel 'nice' and of course 'right' about these matters.
> Socrates was spot on when he talked about the futility 
> of the unexamined life.
> 
> Thank you Nigel for your insightful postings recently, 
> they keep one on one's toes!
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Nigel H
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> >
> > The use of  "personal" experience as our ultimate determinant for 
> > that which is "right" or "wrong" can be a highly flawed process.
> > 
> > After all, how much and which part of our self makes these 
> > determinations? More often than not, isn't it our heavily 
programmed, 
> > habit conditioned personality, founded in its inherited and 
acquired 
> > fears, preferences, attachments and identifications? 
> > To continually insist on ourselves and our experience to be our 
final 
> > arbiter, can in itself be just another strong dogma, one perhaps 
> > lacking humility and potentially possessing not an inconsiderable 
> > amount of fear-based pride.
> > 
> > How are we to approach the works of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr or 
> > Pauli, each giants in their field? Yes, they made mistakes, but 
are 
> > we to diminish or even devalue the profundity of their 
pronouncements 
> > simply because we have not experienced or perhaps even understood 
for 
> > ourselves their mental discoveries? Are we even to consider 
ourselves 
> > on an equal footing, insisting that we will accept nothing they 
have 
> > written and proven until we "discover" or "experience" it for 
> > ourselves?
> > 
> > Of course we need guard against blindly following another's 
> > pronouncements and we need keep open our mind for new discoveries 
and 
> > new ways of looking at things. In potential we are told we each 
have 
> > unlimited capacities. But let us not presume from our programmed, 
> > possibly arrogant, mundane mind that we are all equal in mental 
and 
> > spiritual functioning at this point in time.
> > 
> > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers maintained an age-old 
tradition, 
> > that of endeavouring to bring the inexpressible truths of life 
into 
> > the vernacular and mental culture of the day. We are told 
> > the "unthinkable and unspeakable" cannot be written or spoken, 
> > therefore a structure is erected by mental, and in this case, 
> > spiritual giants in an attempt to ferry us to the "other shore." 
It 
> > is available for us to accept or reject; it is for us to choose 
our 
> > direction and method; it is for us to do the paddling; it is even 
for 
> > us to build the boat. What they have done is provide what some 
> > empiricists might consider a less than perfectly described 
schematic, 
> > which however, with deep study and continued application might 
become 
> > apparent to us, and which may indeed assist us in our attempts to 
> > uncover the actual process and purpose of life in this dimension 
of 
> > existence.
> > 
> > If we cannot, or do not wish to recognise that Madame Blavatsky 
and 
> > her teachers possessed extraordinary and demonstrable fore-
knowledge, 
> > knowledge and occult abilities, then that is our choice. If we 
choose 
> > to focus on what we believe or perceive to be shortcomings, that 
too 
> > we are free to do. Were they absolutely accurate and correct in 
all 
> > they said and did? Are there other traditions which may work for 
the 
> > same "type" of western-minded person? Perhaps or perhaps not, the 
> > empirical western mind's clamouring for dotted i's and crossed 
t's 
> > possibly blinding us from that which truly is. But to consider 
some 
> > of those who followed in their name to have equal credibility in 
this 
> > field of expertise is a matter for considerable debate. To 
consider 
> > ourselves as having equal credibility, from our personal 
experience, 
> > is perhaps just a little presumptuous?
> > 
> > Nigel C
> >
>