THEOSOPHY, Vol. 20, No. 10, August, 1932
(Pages 456-458; Size: 9K)
[Article number (22) in this Q&A Department]
CAN you illustrate for me the distinction between intelligence and intellect?
(a) Intelligence is evident in all forms of life. The minerals have intelligence enough to act according to their own natures; they can combine or refuse to combine with other elements, but always with an unvarying precision. Plants too show an intelligence according to their kind, and animals even more so. Man with all seven principles present, albeit undeveloped, in him has the power of reason. This is the lower aspect of Manas which becomes dual in nature when attached to a body. The higher aspect is intuition. Mr. Judge says:The lower, and purely intellectual, is nearest to the principle of Desire, and is thus distinguished from its other side which has affinity for the spiritual principles above. If the Thinker, then, becomes wholly intellectual, the entire nature begins to tend downward; for intellect alone is cold, heartless, selfish, because it is not lighted up by the two other principles of Buddhi and Atma. (Ocean of Theosophy, page 54).(b) Intelligence and intellect are two aspects of the same principle: mind. Intelligence is more intimately related with man's higher nature and intellect with his lower nature. By intellect we can discriminate between truth and error, but intelligence is necessary to evaluate. That is, intelligence includes moral discernment while intellect does not. This can be seen clearly to link up with the lighting up of manas, or self-consciousness. Up to the point of self-consciousness, all there is of mind is instinct, or collective intelligence. When a being has the self-conscious power of choice, he needs a right basis for his choosing and so his capacity for intelligence develops. It can be seen that the world today stresses intellect too much and intelligence too little. We have gone as far as we can with intellect and need to use our intelligence. The awakening of intelligence in society as a whole would necessitate the reorganization of our educational systems, since education is based on "the intellectual enterprise," and is not able to develop and measure achievements of the intelligence.
If one has the bad Karma to be intimately associated with people that he almost hates, how can he work off that Karma?
(a) Hates are as strong an attraction as love. The only way in which you can rid yourself of such feelings is to stop hating -- easier said than done, you think, but try it once. Often a person impresses us disagreeably at first for whom we later have a strong liking. Most hates are caused by little irritations which we nurse along until we have a good healthy feeling of dislike. Perhaps the hate is carried over from some previous incarnation when we hurt that person or he hurt us. The only thing to do is to try to be impersonal and remember that we are all forms of the same One Life. This is the idea which one much wiser than we dwelt upon to remind himself of the fundamental identity of all:I am not separate from anything. "I am that which is." That is, I am Brahma, and Brahma is everything. But being in an illusionary world, I am surrounded by certain appearances that seem to make me separate. So I will proceed to mentally state and accept that I am all these illusions. I am my friends, -- and then I went to them in general and in particular. I am my enemies; then I felt them all. I am the poor and the wicked; I am the ignorant. ... But shall I not take heart, even when a dear friend deserts me and stabs me deep, when I know that he is myself? (Letters That Have Helped Me, pages 18-19).(b) It is perhaps wrong to attribute to Karma either goodness or badness, since it is just, and anything that is just, is good, even though unpleasant. A strong feeling between two people, whether it be love or hate, causes them to be thrown into contact with each other. The way to "work out the Karma" is to live a life of brotherhood. This would necessitate our examining our own nature. With the basis of brotherhood for our actions, feelings would become unimportant, and the problem would be changed to "How can I help this person?"
Would you say that there is any bad Karma connected with houses and people where there has been much quarreling or deaths by violence?
Quarreling, or violence of any sort, eventually rebounds on the being who engendered such actions, but in the process the life all about us is affected. There must be some effect upon the various kingdoms and the elementals. Most of us are too thick-skinned to be affected by the "feel" of a place, but sensitive people can tell if there has been violence or bloodshed in a house. Thoughts are potent, the forerunners of all our deeds, and they affect life about us. The story of the boy who so affected the brush growing beside the path that fifty years later the effect was noticeable is a good illustration. We must see that we all, being the same in kind and differing only in degree, are responsible to everything we contact -- our every act either helping or hindering the progress of all.
What is the difference, if any, between a good man and a spiritual man?
A man who stays reasonably within the law, who perhaps attends a church, and upholds the policies of various organizations, is a good friend, and does not make anyone dislike him too much, might be called a "good man." But at that he might be weak-willed and follow the crowd, sliding through life with a minimum of responsibility. Unselfish he may be, but at best he acts from the basis of unenlightened unselfishness. But a Spiritual man acts from the basis of enlightened unselfishness. He consciously directs his life from a basis of universal brotherhood, and accepts all that happens to him as the just reaping of what he has sown. This type of life is a battle royal, for the kingdom of heaven must be taken by storm. The spiritual man acts in harmony with the rest of life because he has wisdom; the good man wants to, but his perceptions are limited by his ignorance.
In this vast world depression, why do not Masters provide some way out, since what would save one nation would also save all?
It really would not help matters any to have a brief respite from the affliction which seems to be upon the world. Men would only fall into the slough that much farther. Obviously, wrong thinking and living have created this condition, and only changes in men's hearts and lives can affect a change in outer conditions. We got ourselves into this, and who better can get us out? Only by working out our own Karma do we gain knowledge. The Masters know this and do not interfere with inevitable reactions such as this depression. Our Karma determines the kind of help we shall receive. It is indeed probable that the Masters are helping as much as they can. They have worked through minds they could reach before in other crises, so why assume that They are not doing it now? One of them said:"We never pretended to be able to draw nations in the mass to this or that crisis in spite of the general drift of the world's cosmic relations. The cycles must run their rounds. Periods of mental and moral light and darkness succeed each other as day does night. The major and minor yugas must be accomplished according to the established order of things. And we, borne along the mighty tide, can only modify and direct some of its minor currents." (Ocean of Theosophy, page 5-6).
[Article number (23) in this Q&A Department]
Back to the
complete list of articles.
Back to the full listing containing all of the
"Additional Categories of Articles".