Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00056)

Dallas:

> To achieve the balance of non-involvment in past, present and
> future [memory, choice and anticipation ] one has to place all
> ordinary memory aside.

I don't think that this can be done without the mind having gone
through some transformation.

> But who, or what in us has this capability ? How is it to be
> defined ?

Only a mind that has at least started to go through
transformation.

> What terms shall we use that place it beyond the realm of the
> false (illusions) and in the realm of the TRUE ? How are we to
> assure ourselves that the consciousness we use and are familiar
> with in this state of wakefullness is "fale," "illusionary," or,
> that it can be replaced by something that is "true ?"
>
> To say boldly that truth must reside in "negation" may cause many
> to retreat, not understanding that "negation" in this case (as I
> undersand it) means something that is not conditioned.  It would
> then be "unmanifest."

When we deny what we know is false without replacing it with what
we think is true, there is a renunciation.  And apparently this
is necessary.  Because if we keep updating our concepts and
opinions with new ones, we are going around "in a vicious
circle", and getting nowhere.  We need to be brave (and honest)
and reject what we know is false, without replacing it with "a
possibility".

> Would this be the concept of the ABSOLUTE SPIRIT, of which Mme.
> Blavatsky writes and speaks in the "Secret Doctrine", Vol.  1, p.
> 14-16 ?
>
> Can you compare those statements with what you have gained from
> considering that "negation" you speak of ?

A concept about ABSOLUTE SPIRIT cannot be defined.  Don't you
agree?

> It is agreed that we are most of the time, when awake, constantly
> bathed in the flow of the mind we use, including its 3 main
> aspects: memory, choice, and anticipation.
>
> If as you say attaining a state of freedom from those limitations
> (do you call this "emptiness ?") should lead to discovery of the
> true (assuming that the limitations are all false !) .

The "emptiness" is very real and apparently that is the only way
to the True.  At least memory and anticipation are false, and
choice is only true when we use the right mind.

So how is the "consciousness revolved ?" It cannot be that there
are many consciousnesses, as you would be faced with a great
difficulty: What is it in "me" that records both false and true
"consciousness, or many consciousnesses ?"

I would say, logically to my way of thinking, that there has to
be something which is neither of the nature of the illusion or of
the negation.  It has to be of the nature of TRUTH ITSELF.  If
so, it relates to the ABSLUTE SPIRIT, which by definition is
changeless, ageless, unmodifyable, and undefinable.

There are things that cannot be defined.  And when you see those
concepts and definitions in "theosophical books" you have to
realize that if you want to study that book you better have the
"right" tool: an unconditioned mind.  Isn't that common sense?
Don't you agree that it is an unrealistic expectation to approach
"The Secret Doctrine" with a mind full of conditionings.  Best
wishes,

Rudy