Re: Your E-Mail MSG of Jan y 1998 -- Delayed answer, was hospitalized
Jan 26, 1998 03:58 PM
by Dallas TenBroeck
Jan 26th 1998
Dear Jerry:
Please see my notes and queries attached to your comments below. Some
difference in nomenclature seems to exist, and I don't know why. Dal
----------
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: Your E-Mail MSG of Jan y 1998 -- Delayed answer, was
hospitalized
> Date: Sunday, January 25, 1998 5:56 PM
>
> >You might even say that there is no true "objectivity," as all is truly
> >"subjective" -- as concepts are formed in our mind's eyes and/or on the
> >screen of the brain, which transmits them into the astral and thence
into
> >the manasic planes of perception. [ excuse me if I use the Theosophical
> >definitions and ideas of the 7 principles as described in KEY or OCEAN
> >concerning the 7 fold nature of man, the evolution of the mind aspect of
> >his nature and its relationship to the immortal MONAD, the 3 in 1
> >(ATMA-BUDDHI=MANAS) I have no idea if you have studied these and if you
are of the opinion that they are valuable in discussing psychology. ]
> >
>
> OK, but we do have some definition problems. I see the Atma-Buddhi-
> Manas as the "ray" of the divine Monad, not the monad itself. HPB
> called it the spiritual monad, I think to differentiate it from the
divine.
> =====================================
"Divine Monad" is what ?
"Monad" [KEY, p. 92fn, 129, 119, : defined as (Atma-Buddhi)
HPB in the KEY gives 3 tables in which the "principles" are sorted
by function (pp. 91, 135, 175) As I understand it the
Monad is always "divine" since it has its "root" in the
Universal Spirit (ATMAN) . The Monad is immortal.
Buddhi (Wisdom) is the record of accumulated experience
and serves in its passive aspect as the "vehicle" or "link"
between Atma and Manas.
"Manas" ( Higher Manas) would be indissolubly cemented to the
dual MONAD as its Ray in contact with man's embodied
Lower Manas through the Antaskarana thread (or "ray") .
Do you have a handy reference for HPB's differentiating the
"divine" from the "spiritual" Monad -- to me they would
be identical. But ???
==============================================
> >Yes Theosophy requires belief, but even before that is installed, it
> >demands study of the propositions that it makes and also requires a
sincere
> >attempt of the student/inquirer to try and break them down. Can they be
> >demonstrated to be untrue or inaccurate ? In that sense I said that
> >Theosophy does not encourage belief, especially BLIND BELIEF, or a FAITH
> >which refuses to look into the meaning of things and their causes, as
well
> >as the relationship that is present between everything and everything
else,
> >between units, and any particular unit, and, with all the others -- a
true
> >idea, in other words choosing to practice and act as if brotherhood is
a
> >fact in Nature, involving the furtherest as well as the most minute of
> >"things," and "beings
>
> Theosophy, like Buddhism, discourages blind belief, but it is
> there to some degree anyway.
=============================================
If any "blind belief" is present, how would it be detected ?
Or, is this a given ? If there is a "TRUTH" about all this many-
sided manifestation and our involvement in it, what is
stable and trustworthy ?
I the opposite of "blind belief" "memory with certainty, and
the ability to reproduce at will the facts ?" Would
such facts not also be common property so all could
understand and employ them ?
=======================================
>
> >
> >"UNIVERSE," "WHOLE," are words that I use so as to include everything
that is manifested.
>
> But there are countless universes in manifestation. And we can
> only express ourselves on one of them at a time.
>
> ===============================================
In this regard I would agree, but as there is plenty of time in
infinity, we should be able to master them each, one at
a time. Also II presume that there is an aspect of our
consciousness, which being universal and divine is able
to penetrate and grasp the details of such at WILL ?
==================================================
> >pushing the idea further back to a "source," on is
> >confronted with the idea that there has to be some impersonal, universal
> >and eternal "background" from and in which all that is limited as to
time
> >and space emerges. It would be logical I believe to say also that this
> >periodical emergence is ruled by the great law of cycles.
>
> Yes. Cycles, not spirals.
>
> =================================================
But ? But cycles are periods of time. As in infinity of time or
duration there is always the passage of "time", the
repetition of events are not closed circuits, but really
spirals, because one can never go back to that which
"has been" without interposing a modification to the
originals or the copies one might be presumed to visit ?
============================================
> >So you have, as
> >I would say: ABSOLUTENESS, ABSOLUTE, LAW (Karma).
>
> These only exist relative to relativity and manifestation. Even
> karma tends to be dualistic, so we can talk about causal events
> and acausal events.
>
============================================
I would agree that if we start from the standpoint of the limits
of our present position, there would appear to be only
relativity, even of the ABSOLUTE, LAW etc...
However for there to be any relativity at all there has to be,
as I see it, the logical necessity of some "background"
what ever we may term it, which offers a screen, or
even, if you please, a relatively stable BEING against
or within which the great "Lila" (play and interaction)
of all living things takes place.
We have all this diversity For what reason ?
======================================
> >When MANIFESTATION
> >periodically rolls out again you have the bringing into gradual focus of
> >the powers of living and feeling/thinking that encompass all beings at
> >whatever level of intelligence they may be in. To me it appears that
the
> >man-stage is midway between the ignorant potential of a "child," and the
> >wisdom-perfection" of an Adept. Between kindergarten and the University
to
> >speak of a range of possible development as an analogy with very
definite
> >limits.
> >
> I would say that mankind is currently in its adolescent age, not yet
> even close to midway.
>
>=========================================
I only used the word "midway" since at both ends of our PRESENT
infinity in time stretches out.
===========================================
> >As far as I can think, I know that I exist -- I also recognize my
> >dependence and relationship in and with all the rest of the
manifestation
> >around me, and those aspects of it which support my living I can study
and
> >seek to learn about their existence and the laws of their being. I also
> >ask myself why this is, and usually arrive at only partial answers.
> >
> We may exist in the sense of being the opposite of non-existence,
> but the attempt to define this existence or who we are is a never
> ending struggle. Spiritual progress and the spiritual path are
> probably little more than attempts on uoiur part to discover who
> or what we really are.
=======================================
Agreed
===============================
> >I would certainly agree with you ( and the Buddhists of the Hinayana
> >School) -- see KEY TO THEOSOPHY, p. 81 and footnote ) is saying that
it
> >is extremely rare for the "personality" of this life-time to incarnate
> >again. The "Reincarnating Ego" according to the Theosophical 7-fold
> >division would be Atma-Buddhi-Manas and the noble aspects of the Lower
> >Manas (or the embodied personal mind), which are culled at death and
form
> >the "seeds" for Devachanic meditation
> >
>
> OK. [ A-B-M are undying , and immortal says SD II 102-3 ]
>
> >Theosophy also considers the idea that there are really two Egos in
man,...
>
> I suspect that there are lots more than just two, but I agree in
principle.
>
> > Now this introduces, logically, the idea of a third
> >position. a neutral one, one that looks both ways, at the personal and
> >selfish on one side, and at the noble and self-sacrificing on the other.
> >Would that position not be the one which we "Truly Are ?" We, from that
> >neutral position make choices and decisions. Our future is the result.
> I don't think so. What we "truly are" is the divine Monad. All else is
> clothing. We can only observe both sides while we are in duality,
> but the divine Monad is non-dual and so can't distinguish the two
> sides.
>
>===============================================
I am afraid I do not see this, as it is posited that the MONAD
is Atma-Buddhi (a duality) in manifestation. So it has
its roots in both "camps," that of the Universal One
Spirit (Atman), and the other in Universal Primordial
Matter (Mulaprakriti or Buddhi). [SD I 481 493]
==========================================
> >>From one point of view, our "existence" is a minute slice of ever
> advancing
> >consciousness in time.
>
> >From another point of view consciousness is already spiritual and
> perfect and doesn't need any advancing. From this point of view,
> all advancement is maya.
>
> =================================================
Agreed that Consciousness is referable to Spirit. [SD I 37-8]
The "Lighting up of Manas" is a Promethean gift,
as I understand it, from the Dhyanis (the Wise, who are
Mind beings that have "graduated" and sacrifice their status
and freedom to be tutors to their "younger brothers" (you
and me) and serve a long term in this fashion acting
within us, as our "HIGHER SELF" [ HPB in TRANSACTIONS
OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE (my book from p 66 to 76)
gives a survey of the relation between the 2 Egos in man,
I wonder if you have this to refer to ? ]
> >Time always flows backward into MEMORY.
>
> Then how is it we can sometimes catch glimpses of the future?
>
===============================================
If all actions and motives are registered in the 'astral light' and in
its 7th aspect, the Akasa, the results or consequences of
our acts, thoughts and motives register there as the
probable outcome as a picture. Perhaps we see this. also
may it not be the "Voice of Conscience" also, using those
records, which warns us of possible consequences ? I
know of no other explanation to you observation.
==========================================
> >We act now
> >and our thoughts and motives for action are already memories of the
past.
> >When we make decisions we are ANTICIPATING. We are trying to decide
> >advantages for our future. But, always, we are in the "PRESENT, which
is
> >the "eternal NOW." Very curious, and it takes some time to grasp this
> >idea.
> >
> The past is just as flexiable and fluid as the future. I agree that we
are
> always in the present, though we don't think about the present much.
>
===============================================
I would observe that most of us are careless of the importance
of all three aspects of time, and we seem to be almost
foolhardy in not paying attention to the present and its
molding of our future. If the Universe is a "School," and
if it is ruled by LAW, and LAWS, then our situation is
one where we learn these. Example: We may not like
the English language, but if we desire to communicate,
we learn its rules so a to communicate. We could not be
alive without the community and cooperation (under
LAW) of the environment around us. It is also true that
we are usually abysmally ignorant of all that. But, we
can learn !
========================================
>
> >As to our respective Universes and those which we might assume are
common
> >-- it is a matter of opinion as to whether there is exact coincidence in
> >the way we ever look at the same object/subjects. However it would be
very
> >tedious for the Grand Universe to sub-divide itself infinitely and to no
> >apparent avail.
>
> I agree about it is a matter of opinion. What does "tedious" mean to
> the divine Monad which is outside of space and time? And, since we
> cycle from spiritual condition to spiritual condition, all manifestation
> can be considered no apparent avail, but the whole concept of
> avail requires time and the divine Monad is outside of time.
>
===========================================
If what you aver is true, then there is no reason for further urges
to learn to live and understand in our present condition.
You offer a paradox. And I think you are not correct in thinking
that the MONAD is either "out of time and space" especially
in the ultimate frame-work of its being. This also may
illustrate the fact as the SD says that the mind is unable to
transcend its limitations after going to some limit -- what
that is or means, I am still trying to find out. I too am
not sure of all the "rules of the game" either, but try to
make use of those offered to me, with a view to improving
on what I have so far built. I am also quite prepared to find
that my views are faulty and need refashioning.
===============================
>
> > So to my mind there would be a concentration of energy,
> >thought and intention into a singe mass of interacting intelligences,
which
> >would take care of individual views and positions, while, at the same
time,
> >tending to unite all into a "whole."
>
> I am not sure how you would define "take care of individual views"
> but I have suggested in many places that we "agree" to accept the
> rules of the game of any universe before we start playing in it.
>
>
> > Science and
> >Theosophy both assert that there is a constant exchange (on the material
> >plane for one, of atoms and forces between things and humans, so that
there
> >is "feeding and elimination" going on all the time. This would in one
way
> >explain our continuous contact with the rest of the Universe we live in,
> >and especially our Earth, and our own personal environment.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> >"Feedback" is something that has to be noticed and disentangled, if we
are
> >to guide our own advance. Main question is, to my mind: "What are the
> >Goals ?"
>
> Well, during the Arc of Descent the goal is to differentiate and develop
> an ego from an Ego. During the Arc of Ascent the goal is to integrate and
> develop an Ego from an ego
=============================================
I like that expression and think it is very well put.
==============================================
> .
>
> >One of the things the Buddha said, when asked what he was is: "I am
> >awake." Are we still partially asleep ?
> >
>
> Oh yes.
>
>
> >Why assume that coherent thought is limited to the brain ?
>
> Because when the brain is damaged, coherent thought goes to heck.
>
>
> > It is a tool
> >and sensitive, but only a transmitter to the Intelligence that uses it.
>
> I would say rather a reflector or expressor. What is transmitted is
> only the "aroma" of a life, not every thought.
>
>
> >But, you may not agree. How to explain the intervals of sleep,
> >unconsciousness of various kinds, and the sense of "egoity," or of
"amnesia
> >?" Since the brain as the transmitter of thought from the physical
> >environment dies with the body only the "aroma" survives (KEY) Well is
> >that better than being totally non-essed ? How do we account for the
> >variations of character and talent, or their presence in genius or their
> >absence in idiocy ? What gives us the sense of egoity, of "I-ness ?"
> >
> Whoops. You anticipated me here. How about seeing consciousness
> like a light that shines in certain regions. When it shines on the
> physical plane we are awake. When it shines on the astral plane we are
> asleep, and so on. All of the individual variations that we are talking
> about (swabhava) are mayavic illusions.
>
> ======================================
I also like this expression. Now how is the light of consciousness
switched on or off from subject to subject, or from plane
to plane ? Is it possible that our present position needs
to be thoroughly grasped, and then, by analogy, as the
SD suggests we may extrapolate the rules and laws we
learn to other cases and positions ?
=========================================
> >The "skandhas" are in theosophy, as I understand it, the vehicles of the
> >impressions that we lay on them from moment to moment as we feel, think
and
> >act -- as we "choose." These are also considered to be MONADS in a
state
> >of primitive experience. The idea is that they eventually "graduate"
to
> >self-consciousness, and being endowed with Mind, by the "Wise," they
begin
> >their education as mind-men. We are somewhere in that stage and
condition.
> >
>
> Only monads in a very limited and misleading sense. A monad is supposed
> to be defined as an indivisible unit. I prefer the "stream of
consciousness"
> approach of Buddhism and I think the early theosophical writers misled
> a lot of people with their insistence on so many "monads."
>
=================================================
You may be right in considering a "stream", but even a stream has
its banks and slope, and so, perhaps the MONAD is like the
water which flows along the stream of its living and stores
the melodies that it hears as experience in living, and thus
learns the "rules" as it goes ?
=================================================
> >Maya is of course the result of change and being transitory.
>
> Maya is the result of space and time. [ FOR WHO, OR WHAT ? ]
>
>
> I am running out of time now and have to stop. Thanks for the
> discussion.,
>
[ GLAD YOU ENJOYED IT, SO DO I -- Dal ]
> Jerry S.
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
