Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00066)

Dallas TenBroeck

Jan 11th 1997

Re: M Kusek's comments -- some interjections

----------
> From: "Mark Kusek" <mark@withoutwalls.com>
> Subject: Re:Fractals
> Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 10:16 PM
>
> Jerry Schueler wrote:
> >
> > >Theosophy as I have seen and studied and experienced it is the one
system
> > >which demands that we accept nothing blindly:  No FAITH, no AUTHORITY,
no
> > >BLIND BELIEF.
> > Actually, Buddhism does this too.
> Thank you so much. All in all an extremely interesting post.
>
> 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.)
> Theosophists have so many books to quote from that they often overlook
> this. Even the Mahatmas, if they are to be taken at their words, have to
> be obliged the fact that with as much knowledge as they profess, they
> themselves admit that there are limits to it, even to the knowledge of
> the highest Dhyan Chohans in the System. At a certain point, they too
> have to say, "I do not know." All of the written teachings of Theosophy
> are qualified with this fact, as Madame Blavatsky states numerous times.
> Theosophy students tend to forget this.
>
> 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?
==================================================
DTB;	As I understand it "belief" and "knowledge" are at opposite ends of
the spectrum.  Belief implies no knowledge, and vice versa.

None of the GREAT Beings (Gnyanis, or Dhyan chohans, etc...) have ever
pretended to know everything.  However they all say that NATURE as a WHOLE
contains everything.  Scientists, Gnyanis, us, are all student of what is
already innate in Nature and her laws -- whether in this "manifestation"
and its limits, or others... I would further suggest that the "number of
possible Universes" is not a limiting factor, nor does it focus a belief on
either a selected Universe or all of them taken as a METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT.


If knowledge is an aspect of personal memory then it is limited by the
extent of such memory.  If KNOWLEDGE as a UNIVERSAL CONCEPT is considered,
then no limits can be set, and yet, the concept remains as an aspect of
validity, since it has been thought of by something that can encompass it
as a concept.

The encompassing is neither limited by me, or us, or by any limited being
however great in knowledge or wisdom.  Knowledge serves as one of the 3
necessary positions which analyze and unite FACT with GUESSES, or in
another way, SPIRIT is united to MATTER (form) by MIND -- none of these
being defined except as concepts, ideas.

Thus ATMA and ANATMA would be united by a MIND-PRINCIPLE which includes
them both.
===============================================
> > >
> > Who is the "we" that does this embodying? The human being? If
> > you look higher -- at the divine Monad, I would say that our divine
> > Monad IS the universe (or rather "a" universe).
>
> <snip>
> > >Karma draws us back to life in a new body so that we may balance our
debts,
> > >receive compensation and perhaps start new accounts, and so life goes
on
> > >with, to the real "me" an ever increasing increment of learning and
talent.
> > > HPB in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY gives the system and working of this in
> > >detail.  It is valuable to have a good knowledge of that.
> > But it is questionable about who this "us" is that you are referring
to.
> > It is only the skandhas, which can not be confused with any person or
> > self. No ego or self reincarnates. This is a basic Buddhist teaching,
> > which I agree with.
> Who can know the mystery of Subhava,
> or fathom the causeless cause of Tanha?
> I do not know.
> ===================================================
>
Swabhava -- the mystery of the perceiving SELF seems to lie in each one of
us, and develops its own views as it reaches out through metaphysics to
certain ultimate ideas, which, in its own finiteness it cannot fully
express.  Both the Hindu and Buddhist philosophies consider these, but do
not define them as dogmas, only as concepts. Theosophy does the same.

If we consider each "life-atom," or MONAD to be an immortal pilgrim, then
it becomes rather easy to me to see it developing as time passes into a
unit of consciousness which passing through the man-mind state may reach
the highest states of Gnyan (Wisdom) and become a Buddha or a Dhyani or a
Dhyan Chohan -- we really have no way to identify these levels of progress
other than to say, they may exist.
===================================================
> > the exoteric view of reincarnation, and one that HPB tried to dispell.
> > Unfortunately, the TSs have all touted this exoteric view since HPB
> > and have done a general dis-service to humanity (IMO of course).
>
> ... 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 ...
> ===================================================

Would not the skandhas be stages in the existence of the life-atoms
(Monads) when they become impressed with man's feelings and thoughts and
serve to coat him with the karmic limitations of his early choices ?

I would say that the ultimate cause for MAYA is education -- the grad
progress of the MONAD on into the future of ever-growing wisdomism.

						DTB
=================================================