Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00063)

>Yes, but she also taught that "permanent" and "eternal" only refers
>to this manvantara. Thus the Ego is long-lasting, but not truly eternal.
>This is also the Buddhist view.

I think I'm the only one who uses eternal and immortal together. Eternal is
the law of manifestation, birth and death. But immortal, is existence
without death. These two states alternating in manvantara and pralaya. Does
anyone agree or disagree with this? Eternal always makes me think of the
"turning" of the cycle of existence.

>No. Only the Monad starts with divine consciousness. I think if you
>re-read her material you will find that the Reincarnating Ego is but
>a "ray" of the Monad, and thus is not divine, nor is it eternal.
>The whole idea of "individualized self consciousness" is very
>tricky. How can we presume to suppose a divine Monad starts
>out without self-consciousness?  The Ego may gain self-consciousness
>but not the Monad.

Is it possible that self-consciousness is overrated? I don't look outward
at maya, but inward. When I look inward I find other beings, great beings,
who do not exist materially yet. Knowing them is the greatest privilege in
life, but I have to admit it is not self-knowing, only self-immolation
which permits THEIR existence. Hypothetically I could know the divine Monad
if it were a separate being, couldn't I?

>The Prasangika teach a higher form of Buddhism than the Yogacharaya,
>IMHO. The key word in your statement is "dependence."  The question
>is, Where is an independent I, and the answer is that such an I does
>not exist.

The I is only worth knowing independently if it can stay "good." If the I
is no longer good independently, then why bother with it? The independent I
can be alongside the presence of all other "inner" lives and perform
miraculously in association. The intertwining of lives produces much better
results - for a while - so I am relieved and grateful for this association.

Brenda