Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00165)

>From: "Brenda S Tucker" <brenda@theosophy.com>
>Date: Sunday, January 11, 1998 9:44 PM
>Subject: Re:Fractals
>
>>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
>

Keith:  I am glad to hear some of my reservations and thoughts about the
idea of one permanent ego.  I was going to write one ego for each incarnated
body, but then realized that the idea of reincarnation is that this ego I
have now has been in many physical bodies, so there cannont be one ego per
body according to Eastern traditions as opposed to the Christian tradition.

I have come to believe that I and all that we see around us with our senses
are constantly being mixed and remixed and this is the "refinement", not an
individual refinement where some "win" nirvana or even nirmankaya status
early by burning off "individual" karma. To some degree all karma is past
karma of all the lives that have ever lived, because "I and You and ALL"
were there.  My actions reverberated throught the hologram of Indra's net,
but mine is no more important or focused on my "ego", I am just not that
important.

I believe that genetics holds a key that will soon be unlocked by our
friends the scientists of matter.  I believe that we are constantly mixed in
a genetic "pool" and emerge, quite "mixed up" like the drop from the ocean
and slip back  in when we die.

Thus self-awareness only exist on the manifest of particle part of
perception and not on the quatumn wave or higher levels of consciousness, at
least not in the way we think of self-consciousness. The all is
"self-conscious" in a way we could never understand because it is pure
consciousness, transparent to itself.

Namaste
Keith