Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00053)

>To me, having a belief is a little like being able to honestly admit
>that, in many respects, you simply "don't know." Your belief is the view
>you adopt towards the unknown, (granted, this is a personal view.)

I like this, and agree.


>Your statement that "direct observation of Truth can only take us so
>far" seems like it might be at odds with, for example, some Buddhist
>notions of "enlightenment." Would you care to elaborate your position?
>

Direct observation is called samadhi or mystical experience among
other names. I had one during the late 1960s. Instead of answering
all of my questions about life, it simply gave me a few more. I now
am convinced that such experiences begin the spiritual journey
rather than end it. Anyway, after such experiences, they must be
interpreted by the brain-mind in order to assimilate them into one's
worldview. Its during the interpretation period that problems develop
because interpretation is always based on one's personal
experience, culture, religion, and so on. So, is the experience the
same for everyone and only the interpretations differ, or are the
experiences themselves different?

> Have you ever wondered how those Buddhists can say all
>that wonderful stuff about "anatma" and "no-self" but carry on a
>perfectly good personal conversation with you while they're doing it?
>;-)

Actually I agree with the Buddhists. There is no personal unchanging
eternal self and so anatma is a truth. On the other hand, we always
have a sense of identity or sense of selfhood. How we define this
self changes over time as we evolve, but we always have a sense
of identity.

>
>So are you saying (by your qualifying "rather" statement above) that
>your perception/conception of the Monad is as a "one among others?"
>Words are tricky here. You seem to be supporting lots of dualistic
>points of view; i.e., You looking at/the Monad, the Monad as an
>individual universe/among other universes, while simultaneously BEING
>the universe, etc. What does the word "universe" mean to you in these
>usages?
>

>From our human perception there are countless Monads, each of which
is a universe unto itself. The Monad itself does not share this view, of
course.



>Who can know the mystery of Subhava,
>or fathom the causeless cause of Tanha?
>I do not know.
>

Svabhava is a thorny issue. G de Purucher and others seem
to love it and almost revere it in their writings. Buddhists, however
equate it with maya and consider it almost evil. This is one of
those topics where Theosophy sharply differs from Buddhism.


>... and the ultimate reason for all this maya in the first place?
>I certainly don't know that either, but loving Thoa's been really good.
>Not to mention sushi, art museums, little kids, puppies ...
>I could go on and on ...
>
>Mark


I think the "reason" is the inherent need or desire of the Monad to
self-express. Thanks. This has been a good discussion.

Jerry S.