Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00177)

> From: "Jake Jaqua" <barkus23@aol.com>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:15:17 -0400
> Subject: Buddha
>
>        Geez, Allan.  Dissing Buddha is a bit too much. If it
> wasn't for Buddha and as well his reincarnation as
> Shankaracharya, and the overall elevating affect he had
> on humanity directly and indirectly - you'd have never
> heard of the "Absolute" and be pissing in the corner of
> your hovel while working as a indentured slave shovelling
> sh*t for some feudal baron - like everyone else,
> while counting your prayer beads for the monks and
> priests, and under threat of death for doing or thinking
> anything else.......
>                     -  Jake J.

Thanks Jake,

Many of my comments sound like statements Jake, sorry about that.  Take them as view points from the place I am at please and therefore a
logical consequence of that position for me.  It seems I have rubbed a few up the wrong way.

Buddha did have an overall elevating affect on the entire world.  He was an incarnation of compassion for those of us still unable to
accept the absolute as person.   He gave us a way, whereby we can acheive a "type" or "form" of at least temporary liberation.   Buddha
gives the only pleasant why of aproaching the "absolute" without accepting the whole truth.

I don't think it is  true however that we would not know about the "absolute" if not for Buddha, because Shaivism is much the same and
that is millenium older than Buddhism.  Buddhism (in terms of final result) is in many ways  Shaivism without Lord Shiva.


With regards to my aweful, infuriating  comments about Nirvana.  As I believe it  is not the final answer and is simply a state of
absorbtion in the divine energy pervading everything, there is no point in ME persuing it.  (I don't have any problems comprehending "God"
"THAT" etc as Person and Form or as All pervasive energy or consciousness).


Also such a state of cradle consciousness is a "pleasurable"  experience and connection for anyone in the Supernal realms.  This achieved
without subjugation of the ever existing "I".


I think that achieving "Nirvana" from this plane CAN result in a wake up call, whereby you say to yourself "This ain't it" at which point
IF you suddenly remember the truth, you will catapult out into the supernal heavens.  More likely though you will simply fall into
Nescience at the end of a Kalpa and be re-initiated in the next Kalpa.  I  have no desire to go into Nescience because we are nearing the
end of the 6th Kalpa and a cycle is only 7 Kalpas.  Now if I don't go home this time,  I could fall into  Nescience again.  To come back

in the 7th Kalpa and possibly fail again and then I will be out until a new series of 7 Kalpa starts.  Theoretically  this could go on for
ever and quite honestly it frightens the hell out of me.  So I am not going to risk my immortal life in the Supernal Realm, by following
or accepting, what seems to me only a marginal state.


To give some idea of what I percieve as  "Nirvana" or absorbtion into the "Brahmajoti", paint a line of paper in blue.  Then paint another
line in red but ever so slightly overlapping the blue.  It is at this cross over point that you will see a merging of colours.  This is
where the Brahmajoti or the Nirvanic experience takes place.  It is neither this universe or the next. Here you could see reflected the
whole material universe and all it's planes and also the Supernal universe.  However in this state of blissfull absorbtion and reflection
you may think that all these reflections are unreal and illusionary.  You can see how it might be very difficult to get out.  Engaged in a
form of self gratifying pleasure, connected to (albiet spuriously) to the divine all pervasive energy, what would get you out?  How would
you divine that it is a un-natural cross world?    I don't know and thereby fear to go there from here.


A better description might be a tennis ball.  This is in fact how I understood  it,  (I was goint to say where I got this info Jake but
decided against mentioning it  based on advice from another digest writer).  Imagine a tennis ball.  Our entire universe is the inside
surface of the tennis ball, The outside surface of the tennis ball is the supernal realms.  The seperation of the two is a narrow band
(the material between the two surfaces.  It is this band that is the Brahmajoti, the place of reflections and bliss, the place of Nirvana.


Along these lines of thought I pose myself this problem.


1. Given that Buddha has achieved a state of becoming the "All".
2. Given that Buddha is therefore "All" powerfull.
3. Given that Buddha is all compassion.
4. Given that Buddha "knows" that individual self hood is illusion only.


4 Means that Buddha need not consider free will or individual desires and needs.
3 Means that Buddha would want to end the illusion and suffering.
2 Means that Buddha can end all this for all of us now.


Then why doesn't he? I ask myself.


Worse than this, if  we are all ONE, then why are we not all liberated when just one achieves liberation? I cannot answer this question.


I tried for years.  No one has yet given me, an answer that is  satisfactory.  I have a close friend who is an initiated buddhist monk
and he can't answer it.  He has now come to a new understanding of the states that Buddha speaks of and finally thinks that "THAT" may
have an ever existing form and universe. We are still some way apart in  philosophy but enjoy rattling about it anyway.


For me to be satisfied,  these points have to answered satisfactority.   The conclusion is, for me,
that poor old Buddha has fallen into Yogic Error.  (Yogic Error is caused by a partial experience of the Divine from which one draws an
incorrect conclusion).


You will now see why I wrote such expletives, though perhaps I shouldn't and won't again.   I consider this spirituality thing is very,
VERY serious, we are dealing with our EXISTANCE here and our liberation from this morass, we call material life.  I simply don't want to
waste my time going after marginal states or after things that seem like  impossibilities to me.  If my language is strong, it is
precisely because I think it is serious business.  However I will calm down.


It is clear to me, that every one on this digest is an intelligent sincere person with incredible knowledge in some areas.
I can't comment on the detail stuff too much about all these realms that are mentioned or the seven rays etc but I did  want to put across
what I consider to be an important point.



Whether or not what you say about barons etc  is true or not  is uncertain.  I simply haven't a clue.

> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 20:49:35 -0400
> Subject: Re: karma
>
> > >>
> > >>------------------------------
>
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 21:08:26 -0400
> Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #327
>
> >
> > AND it has nothing whatsoever to do with EVOLUTION.   It has to do
> > with the round of existence caused by at least 3 factors, A) Karma, B)
> > Randomness and C) cos it's your turn.  In a universe of competition
> > this is how the playing field is set level.  It doesn't look very fair
> > over the short term but over the long, we can see how it works out.
> > Not that we like it much.
>
> I rather like this idea.
>
> > Nothing to do with evolution.  The Soul does not and cannot evolve.
> > Only bodies "evolve".  The soul is eternal, full of knowledge and
> > bliss, this is covered and limited by the forms it inhabits and
> > Prakti. (The inferior energy of God/material nature).
> >
>
> According to HPB the soul or reincarnating Ego does
> evolve, else what would it do with the "aroma" of each
> life lived? It is spirit that does not evolve.


The material ego, does evolve  through incarnations.  I don't think I am saying anything different here.
By soul I mean the individual spark of Self that is our eternal ever existing life.  I am not refering to all the mental and emotional
stuff  we carry around with our etheric and other bodies.  I think? that HPB uses the word "spirit" where I would use "soul".
I suppose a better word is JIVA which I undersand  means eternal living entity with an existance beyond "Prakti".
Again however this might be seen differently by others.


>
>
> >
> > Suffering is part of the matrix of this Prakti universe.  You can't
> > escape it by living as a material being, we have old age, disease and
> > death on all the planes and levels of this universe.  The initiation
> > of suffering is self inflicted.  We have joined this hellish dance of
> > life by our own choice and we are suffering for it.  The fact there is
> > any relief and happiness at all is the mercy of God.
> >
>
> I can't help but wonder why you feel the need to bring God
> into this. I see suffering and pleasure as two sides of a
> duality, and we suffer only because of our desire for
> pleasure. God has nothing to do with it except insofar as
> perhaps he created duality in the first place.


Duality is an ever existing natural state. The very fact of self referal is a duality.  I think people  seem to have a problem
comprehending how the "absolute" can have an ever existing form and personality.  My previous postings to digest show how this can be.
I think that we are here suffering because of the very sin of consciousness that you have rather well elucidated above.


>
>
> > We should of course try to ease suffering and help others but the best
> > thing to do really,  is get out of the kitchen.
> >
>
> I agree if getting out of the kitchen means giving up pleasure
> along with the suffering. You can't have one without the other.


I tend to think  that, that is duality and illusion.


> It is, Is think, a consequence of our desire for pleasure, and
> so we will suffer whenever and wherever such desire is harbored.


I think that in this world/universe it is our illicit desires that give rise to the competition and suffering we endue.  Unfortunately,
some sages having seen this make the YOGIC ERROR of assuming that all desire is bad for you and all pleasure.  But  to me, there is a
Supernal Realm beyond illusion and illicit desire where our true constitutional position as companion being is experienced.  Here there is
only loving exchanges and bliss.  Our one desire being to participate in the eternal infinately variagated pastimes with the "absolute" as
God and Person.  Now I know where most are comming from.  Wondering how God can be a person, one  might think that "God" or "personality"

is but an expression of the sea of existance that we call the "absolute". This probably because we are letting time conditioning get in
the way.  If we can put time aside time conditioning and allow for an ever existing state of self referal as Self as Form and Person  we
mayl  see that it can be. If we  put aside the thoughts "this gives rise to that and that gives rise to this."   This is time conditioning
and an illusion of this "prakti" universe.


>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Its already there my friend. Buddha got into trouble
> when he tried to put Truth into words, as we all tend
> to do from time to time. It can't be done, but here we
> are all trying to do it anyway.
>
> Jerry S.


I agree Jerry and thank you for writing.I seem to be struggling getting my point across as well.
It seems very difficult in getting another to understand that God can be a person and form and that it is not illusion.  This is because I
think so much to the contrary has been written by impersonalists, buddhists and the like.  I thought someone  should  seriously challenge
this and that an alternative view put forward should be presented.



Feel free to disagree with the lot Jerry, everyone else does.


Allan.


>
>
>
>
> From: "Brenda S Tucker" <brenda@theosophy.com>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:41:03 -0700
> Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #328
>
>
>
> Now, Allan, you are not doing justice to the conversation if you don't look
> at the book firsthand.


True.


> I am only giving a quick overview of parts that
> made a great deal of sense to me and I gave a speech on the entire book at
> a theosophical gathering, so don't tell me there isn't food for thought in
> the whole matter.


Ok.


>
>
> What is so difficult or strange about the concept that egoic energy
> "breathes" in and out of the lower vehicles?


Nothing thats fine.


>
>
> The book uses "tamas, rajas, and sattvas" to describe stages of human
> existence as a soul.


Yes but we are dealing with material unfoldment again.  Looking at stuff Brenda, I think I use the word soul where HPB might use spirit.
I am afraid you need to educate me on that.    I seem to use some terms that may have a different meaning to others.


> In other words, the first stage describes a
> relatively young soul, one without a terrific number of lives in the past.
> Second stage is a mid-life soul with a significant number of more lives and
> the third stage is the last set of lives or an advanced ego, but its more
> than this also.  You have to use your mental powers to try and see some of
> the points that other people are making in their writing and be considerate
> that this may actually be answering someone's questions, even if not your own.


I can see this.  It is a clever description of the development of the competition of the Kalpa and the steady advancement of the
individual through various stages of covering and power.   As such it is very interesting and edifying.  My worry though is that it may
lead us to consider all this stuff as the goal?


>
>
> I'm not directing the above correspondence in answer to this type of
> question.  The question I was addressing was something about "does
> suffering bring us to the study of esoteric philosophy?"  One of our
> members commented about her own reason for not allowing suffering was
> because she wasn't sure the egoic state was one of bliss.


Ok.  I would say, suffering is the means whereby we come to such study.


>
>
> This is not about the ego suffering.  The above is written about conditions
> that exist in our vehicles.  Now you are probably familiar with the thought
> that suffering is a result of desire. When things are good, we remember how
> much we enjoyed them or we desire experience or any number of things which
> we can't acquire.


Yes.


> I don't know why you are making this point. There wasn't a monster of my

> creation. The difference was one of being a recipient of "soul" forces or
> having those forces indrawn.


I am just trying to show here how, if we don't draw a line between what is material development and the "spirit" we may  fall into the
trap of mistakingly  thinking that we are evolving, when it is just the vehicals that are. (The development  of such, giving us, I admit
better insights and powers etc and therby helping us in our task for evolution.)


>
>
> Illusion is a familiar concept in spiritual science. I never said man was
> illusion, only plants and animals.  They appear to exist as we exist and
> yet, I believe, theosophy tries to prove they are here because man is here
> and they aid us in a special way.


Well they do help us.


> The REAL existence of animals and plants
> are possibly elsewhere in this planetary chain.  That is the a common
> theosophical thought and study.  The chains, rounds, and globes are
> described in many places.  The REAL distinguishing characteristic of the
> animals and plants belonging to other globes is that they are a kingdom.
> They have their own turf and they WILL someday become human.


Well yes the "spirits" within these vehicals will get a better vehical someday.  (Human).


> It is quite
> possible that the life ensouling the plants and animals we exist with here
> on earth will NEVER become human, because they belong to a separate
> INVOLVING life, rather than an EVOLVING life.


Possibly.


> I don't find your writing pleasant or peaceful as a discussion.


Sorry.


> I think
> you can make points without being so emotionally involved with what you are
> saying.  Can't you please calm down and try to discuss ideas and issues and
> not be so "off the mark."  You are not referring to what I have said or
> written and you are throwing out remarks that relate to nothing.


Well having read the above, I thought that it was leading again away from the self as an immortal ever existing being and that each living
thing has the same type of "spirit".  Yes all vehicals are different, some alien to  us but.....


> Please try
> to rewrite the remainder of your comments in a way that they encourage
> friendly conversation and discussion.  I am not pretending to put forth
> ideas that I like.  I am being sincere in studying other writers
> effectively as I can without directing material to you alone. I didn't know
> that you felt a need to designate yourself respondent on everything that is
> written on our list.


Didn't think I was but ok, I won't do it.  I will simply reply to post directed to me.


> If you don't like something, why don't you wait and
> see if anyone else receives anything of value from the material before
> passing it off as inconceivable or incommunicable.


I am not saying I don't like it. There are quite  a few of the writers that I find fascinating, including you.


I don't know where you get any idea of


> "impersonal" from what I have written.


I got that because I thought  it was  describing a state  which implies a sort of evolution or emanation.  Evolution itself implying an
earlier lower state.  Again because I see the "spirit" (I am not sure if we understand this word the same) as non evolving, full of
knowledge, eternality and bliss, this development system could perhaps lead us to ever more and more development within this universe.
Which I personally  am worried to death about.


>
>
> This could be rewritten in a more discussive
> tone........................................................................


Sorry.  I am not being deliberately non discussive.


>
>
> The reason for the suffering was that the person identified with the ego's
> energies as they were playing through the forms, thereby creating an
> attachment to the form side.  There wouldn't be suffering if the person had
> identified with the ego as an eternal self, existing beyond the form,


Yes I see that part.


> because only slowly does man reach his recognition of himself as a soul.

> When this is accomplished, balance and harmony reign because each new
> influx of soul power is recognized as being essential to make an impact on
> the small, lesser lives in the vehicles, creating characteristics in the
> form which serve man well and allow us to free our attention to new vistas.


Unless the term "lesser lives" refers to a material condition, I don't understand.


> When this soul power recedes, the forms themselves are asked to continue
> the vibration without the presence of the egoic force.


Here I am utterly lost.  Not knowing what is really mean't by Egoic form or even if we have the same understanding of the term Soul?


> When they learn to
> accomplish this, there's no pain just capacity. Our forms are better than
> the animals, for instance.


Yes, I think I have also said that.


> When the egoic forces, which are love and
> compassion and light energy, leave, the forms continue, but there's no
> energy doing the work for them and they find they have to accomplish this
> without the ease and pleasure they had before.  The forms have to work, and
> if they do, they accomplish progressed physical, emotional, or mental
> states.  The matter and vibration becomes more built by the ego.  Matter
> acting on its own, like an ego, isn't painful, is it?  So the pain arises
> from something pleasureful, like love - as part of the egoic energy - being
> withdrawn.  A mother, too, slowly withdraws her assistance so that her
> children can accomplish activity on their own.  This isn't so unusual, so
> just calm down and think.  How does a child learn to walk, except by a
> letting go of those two little hands?


This sound rather nice.  It seems to imply that we are helped up the planes?    Problem is, I don't really see the point in going any
higher in this universe.  I can see the point in getting to this human state from others however.


>
>
> Are you referring to yourself or to the writer of the book?  There isn't
> really any mention of individuality.  Can't you perceive that egoic forces
> are sent forth in different manners?  Our free will and circumstances in
> life ultimately would play in with the scene.  How can you assert such
> nonsense?


No I am having trouble with this I am afraid. Sorry about that.  It looks like I have may have misunderstood what you mean by Egoic
forces.  I thought that an Egoic force was being presented as an individual and the term is alien to me, it seems to me to describe the
steady build up of the material or this universes  personality?  Then it seems the "individual is some how being emanated and developed.
Not sure if I am getting this right?


>
>
> >>
> >> An ego is an individual, SO STOP COMPLAINING.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> If the ego did not withdraw its energies periodically, there would never be
> >> the accomplishment of having our activity occur harmoniously and smoothly
> >> without undue attention. This is karma. Also, The harmony we are looking
> >> for is threefold: 1) outgoing Ego contacts body and outer world - this
> >> repetition of contact causes automatic activity, 2) the adjustment by the
> >> logoic lifewaves to keep harmony as both the Ego's bodies and the lesser
> >> lives around the Ego (plants, animals, minerals) go without Egoic contact,
> >> and 3) the automatic Ego impress flooding the body and keeping it
> >> controlled and working efficiently.
> >>
> >> Now the Ego can "view" its Self in its sheaths and can experience "being"
> >> this way, but the Ego cannot do so (with all of its new unfolding powers)
> >> independently of the form and this is a goal, because while the Egos use
> >> form to experience and learn, they're aim is to retain this coloring
> >> independently of reincarnation in form.


But I can't see this if we have a ever existing perfect vehical for our "self" in the supernal world?  Although I can see it as a material
progression for a covered "self" in this universe?


> The way to learn this is for the

> >> egoic energy to withdraw back into the ego, an act associated with pain.
> >> Yogis are especially attentive to whether their ego is energizing the form
> >> or withdrawing from the form. Their concept of non-attachment is practiced
> >> so that they can experience existing beyond form. As long as these energies
> >> occur in cycles, we are providing Ishvara with time with her children and
> >> providing the children time to exist without egoic control. This is the
> >> highest harmony, but sometimes people don't recognize that Ishvara is at
> >> work nor that matter can act in a limited sense without constant egoic
> >> supervision.


Doesn't Ishvara withdraw at the Kalpas end?  Again I am having problems because of the terms "existing" without form.  As I understand it,
no form means diffusion?


> >This was not in my material at all.  If you are concerned about this, don't


> bring it up as a comment to my paper, but write your own new message.


Ok


> No, it doesn't. Can't you picture the book discussing a portion of what
> occurs in life rather than expecting to be given the whole entire large
> picture at once?  Just because this one process is occurring doesn't mean
> there aren't many, many more processes at play as well.  You are probably
> missing something regarding how our material life builds the ego, because
> this is the old familiar way to present life.  We are building souls to
> live in some day.  Well, what if those soul qualities exist, but can't be
> felt because we aren't far enough in the number of human lives needed to
> have acquired access to the soul's vibration finding a home in our material
> bodies.  You can think different ideas, can't you, without accepting as
> final any of them?


Yes.


> I know that perhaps theosophy isn't your cup of tea if you can't open
> yourself up to possibilites without using such offensive words and phrases,
> and over nothing, in my mind.


Not trying to be offensive, really. It must be my terrible nature.


> There are two types of EGO pertaining to the marginal or conditional
> being.  1. False Ego,  that
> >is the ego  covering our real natures and this developes according to our
> experience in this
> >alternate universe.
> >
> Write your own deep message if your thoughts are sent in some opposing
> direction.  Why don't you try to find a great quote similar to this:
> Without Ego or self referal you have NOTHING.  It doesn't register with me
> at all.


Well I can't understand how something not able to say "I am" that is have self referal, exists as consciousness. Surely the first primal
nature of consciouness is self awareness.  If you don't have self awareness what is there to be aware of something else?I am sorry I just
cannot answer this question. Call me a stupid fool if you like but I  just can't understand it.


> Thank you for your detailed letter, I will study it to the best of my ability and take on the points you make.


Sorry if I upset you, that really was not my intention.  I hope I have given some indication as to why I thought what I did re the
previous posting.I will only reply to persons who direct their postings to me through the digest or directly and I will only do this if a
specific question is asked.


Allan.

> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:15:17 -0400
> From: "Jake Jaqua" <barkus23@aol.com>
> Subject: Buddha

       Geez, Allan.  Dissing Buddha is a bit too much. If it
wasn't for Buddha and as well his reincarnation as
Shankaracharya, and the overall elevating affect he had
on humanity directly and indirectly - you'd have never
heard of the "Absolute" and be pissing in the corner of
your hovel while working as a indentured slave shovelling
sh*t for some feudal baron - like everyone else,
while counting your prayer beads for the monks and

priests, and under threat of death for doing or thinking
anything else.......
                    -  Jake J.

Thanks Jake,
Many of my comments sound like statements Jake, sorry about that.  Take them as view points from the place I am at please and therefore a logical consequence of that position for me.  It seems I have rubbed a few up the wrong way.

Buddha did have an overall elevating affect on the entire world.  He was an incarnation of compassion for those of us still unable to accept the absolute as person.   He gave us a way, whereby we can acheive a "type" or "form" of at least temporary liberation.   Buddha gives the only pleasant why of aproaching the "absolute" without accepting the whole truth.

I don't think it is  true however that we would not know about the "absolute" if not for Buddha, because Shaivism is much the same and that is millenium older than Buddhism.  Buddhism (in terms of final result) is in many ways  Shaivism without Lord Shiva.

With regards to my aweful, infuriating  comments about Nirvana.  As I believe it  is not the final answer and is simply a state of absorbtion in the divine energy pervading everything, there is no point in ME persuing it.  (I don't have any problems comprehending "God" "THAT" etc as Person and Form or as All pervasive energy or consciousness).

Also such a state of cradle consciousness is a "pleasurable"  experience and connection for anyone in the Supernal realms.  This achieved without subjugation of the ever existing "I".

I think that achieving "Nirvana" from this plane CAN result in a wake up call, whereby you say to yourself "This ain't it" at which point IF you suddenly remember the truth, you will catapult out into the supernal heavens.  More likely though you will simply fall into Nescience at the end of a Kalpa and be re-initiated in the next Kalpa.  I  have no desire to go into Nescience because we are nearing the end of the 6th Kalpa and a cycle is only 7 Kalpas.  Now if I don't go home this time,  I could fall into  Nescience again.  To come back in the 7th Kalpa and possibly fail again and then I will be out until a new series of 7 Kalpa starts.  Theoretically  this could go on for ever and quite honestly it frightens the hell out of me.  So I am not going to risk my immortal life in the Supernal Realm, by following or accepting, what seems to me only a marginal state.

To give some idea of what I percieve as  "Nirvana" or absorbtion into the "Brahmajoti", paint a line of paper in blue.  Then paint another line in red but ever so slightly overlapping the blue.  It is at this cross over point that you will see a merging of colours.  This is where the Brahmajoti or the Nirvanic experience takes place.  It is neither this universe or the next. Here you could see reflected the whole material universe and all it's planes and also the Supernal universe.  However in this state of blissfull absorbtion and reflection you may think that all these reflections are unreal and illusionary.  You can see how it might be very difficult to get out.  Engaged in a form of self gratifying pleasure, connected to (albiet spuriously) to the divine all pervasive energy, what would get you out?  How would you divine that it is a un-natural cross world?    I don't know and thereby fear to go there from here.

A better description might be a tennis ball.  This is in fact how I understood  it,  (I was goint to say where I got this info Jake but decided against mentioning it  based on advice from another digest writer).  Imagine a tennis ball.  Our entire universe is the inside surface of the tennis ball, The outside surface of the tennis ball is the supernal realms.  The seperation of the two is a narrow band (the material between the two surfaces.  It is this band that is the Brahmajoti, the place of reflections and bliss, the place of Nirvana.

Along these lines of thought I pose myself this problem.

1. Given that Buddha has achieved a state of becoming the "All".
2. Given that Buddha is therefore "All" powerfull.
3. Given that Buddha is all compassion.

4. Given that Buddha "knows" that individual self hood is illusion only.

 4 Means that Buddha need not consider free will or individual desires and needs.
 3 Means that Buddha would want to end the illusion and suffering.
 2 Means that Buddha can end all this for all of us now.

Then why doesn't he? I ask myself.

Worse than this, if  we are all ONE, then why are we not all liberated when just one achieves liberation? I cannot answer this question.

 I tried for years.  No one has yet given me, an answer that is  satisfactory.  I have a close friend who is an initiated buddhist monk and he can't answer it.  He has now come to a new understanding of the states that Buddha speaks of and finally thinks that "THAT" may have an ever existing form and universe. We are still some way apart in  philosophy but enjoy rattling about it anyway.

For me to be satisfied,  these points have to answered satisfactority.   The conclusion is, for me,
that poor old Buddha has fallen into Yogic Error.  (Yogic Error is caused by a partial experience of the Divine from which one draws an incorrect conclusion).

You will now see why I wrote such expletives, though perhaps I shouldn't and won't again.   I consider this spirituality thing is very, VERY serious, we are dealing with our EXISTANCE here and our liberation from this morass, we call material life.  I simply don't want to waste my time going after marginal states or after things that seem like  impossibilities to me.  If my language is strong, it is precisely because I think it is serious business.  However I will calm down.

It is clear to me, that every one on this digest is an intelligent sincere person with incredible knowledge in some areas.
I can't comment on the detail stuff too much about all these realms that are mentioned or the seven rays etc but I did  want to put across what I consider to be an important point.

Whether or not what you say about barons etc  is true or not  is uncertain.  I simply haven't a clue.

Allan

> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 20:49:35 -0400
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: karma

> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 21:08:26 -0400
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #327

>
> AND it has nothing whatsoever to do with EVOLUTION.   It has to do
> with the round of existence caused by at least 3 factors, A) Karma, B)
> Randomness and C) cos it's your turn.  In a universe of competition
> this is how the playing field is set level.  It doesn't look very fair
> over the short term but over the long, we can see how it works out.
> Not that we like it much.
>
>

I rather like this idea.

> Nothing to do with evolution.  The Soul does not and cannot evolve.
> Only bodies "evolve".  The soul is eternal, full of knowledge and
> bliss, this is covered and limited by the forms it inhabits and
> Prakti. (The inferior energy of God/material nature).
>

According to HPB the soul or reincarnating Ego does
evolve, else what would it do with the "aroma" of each
life lived? It is spirit that does not evolve.

The material ego, does evolve  through incarnations.  I don't think I am saying anything different here.
By soul I mean the individual spark of Self that is our eternal ever existing life.  I am not refering to all the mental and emotional stuff  we carry around with our etheric and other bodies.  I think? that HPB uses the word "spirit" where I would use "soul".
I suppose a better word is JIVA which I undersand  means eternal living entity with an existance beyond "Prakti".
Again however this might be seen differently by others.

>
> Suffering is part of the matrix of this Prakti universe.  You can't
> escape it by living as a material being, we have old age, disease and
> death on all the planes and levels of this universe.  The initiation
> of suffering is self inflicted.  We have joined this hellish dance of

> life by our own choice and we are suffering for it.  The fact there is
> any relief and happiness at all is the mercy of God.
>

I can't help but wonder why you feel the need to bring God
into this. I see suffering and pleasure as two sides of a
duality, and we suffer only because of our desire for
pleasure. God has nothing to do with it except insofar as
perhaps he created duality in the first place.

Duality is an ever existing natural state. The very fact of self referal is a duality.  I think people  seem to have a problem comprehending how the "absolute" can have an ever existing form and personality.  My previous postings to digest show how this can be.     I think that we are here suffering because of the very sin of consciousness that you have rather well elucidated above.

> We should of course try to ease suffering and help others but the best
> thing to do really,  is get out of the kitchen.
>

I agree if getting out of the kitchen means giving up pleasure
along with the suffering. You can't have one without the other.

I tend to think  that, that is duality and illusion.
It is, Is think, a consequence of our desire for pleasure, and
so we will suffer whenever and wherever such desire is harbored.

I think that in this world/universe it is our illicit desires that give rise to the competition and suffering we endue.  Unfortunately, some sages having seen this make the YOGIC ERROR of assuming that all desire is bad for you and all pleasure.  But  to me, there is a Supernal Realm beyond illusion and illicit desire where our true constitutional position as companion being is experienced.  Here there is only loving exchanges and bliss.  Our one desire being to participate in the eternal infinately variagated pastimes with the "absolute" as God and Person.  Now I know where most are comming from.  Wondering how God can be a person, one  might think that "God" or "personality" is but an expression of the sea of existance that we call the "absolute". This probably because we are letting time conditioning get in the way.  If we can put time aside time conditioning and allow for an ever existing state of self referal as Self as Form and Person  we mayl  see that it can be. If we  put
 aside the thoughts "this gives rise to that and that gives rise to this."   This is time conditioning and an illusion of this "prakti" universe.


>

>

Its already there my friend. Buddha got into trouble
when he tried to put Truth into words, as we all tend
to do from time to time. It can't be done, but here we
are all trying to do it anyway.

Jerry S.

I agree Jerry and thank you for writing.I seem to be struggling getting my point across as well.
It seems very difficult in getting another to understand that God can be a person and form and that it is not illusion.  This is because I think so much to the contrary has been written by impersonalists, buddhists and the like.  I thought someone  should  seriously challenge this and that an alternative view put forward should be presented.

Feel free to disagree with the lot Jerry, everyone else does.

Allan.

> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:41:03 -0700
> From: "Brenda S Tucker" <brenda@theosophy.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #328

Now, Allan, you are not doing justice to the conversation if you don't look
at the book firsthand.

True.
I am only giving a quick overview of parts that
made a great deal of sense to me and I gave a speech on the entire book at
a theosophical gathering, so don't tell me there isn't food for thought in
the whole matter.
Ok.

What is so difficult or strange about the concept that egoic energy
"breathes" in and out of the lower vehicles?

Nothing thats fine.

The book uses "tamas, rajas, and sattvas" to describe stages of human
existence as a soul.

Yes but we are dealing with material unfoldment again.  Looking at stuff Brenda, I think I use the word soul where HPB might use spirit.  I am afraid you need to educate me on that.    I seem to use some terms that may have a different meaning to others.

In other words, the first stage describes a
relatively young soul, one without a terrific number of lives in the past.
Second stage is a mid-life soul with a significant number of more lives and
the third stage is the last set of lives or an advanced ego, but its more
than this also.  You have to use your mental powers to try and see some of
the points that other people are making in their writing and be considerate
that this may actually be answering someone's questions, even if not your own.
I can see this.  It is a clever description of the development of the competition of the Kalpa and the steady advancement of the individual through various stages of covering and power.   As such it is very interesting and edifying.  My worry though is that it may lead us to consider all this stuff as the goal?

I'm not directing the above correspondence in answer to this type of
question.  The question I was addressing was something about "does
suffering bring us to the study of esoteric philosophy?"  One of our
members commented about her own reason for not allowing suffering was
because she wasn't sure the egoic state was one of bliss.

Ok.  I would say, suffering is the means whereby we come to such study.

This is not about the ego suffering.  The above is written about conditions
that exist in our vehicles.  Now you are probably familiar with the thought
that suffering is a result of desire. When things are good, we remember how
much we enjoyed them or we desire experience or any number of things which
we can't acquire.

Yes.
I don't know why you are making this point. There wasn't a monster of my
creation. The difference was one of being a recipient of "soul" forces or
having those forces indrawn.

I am just trying to show here how, if we don't draw a line between what is material development and the "spirit" we may  fall into the trap of mistakingly  thinking that we are evolving, when it is just the vehicals that are. (The development  of such, giving us, I admit better insights and powers etc and therby helping us in our task for evolution.)

Illusion is a familiar concept in spiritual science. I never said man was
illusion, only plants and animals.  They appear to exist as we exist and
yet, I believe, theosophy tries to prove they are here because man is here
and they aid us in a special way.

Well they do help us.
The REAL existence of animals and plants
are possibly elsewhere in this planetary chain.  That is the a common
theosophical thought and study.  The chains, rounds, and globes are
described in many places.  The REAL distinguishing characteristic of the
animals and plants belonging to other globes is that they are a kingdom.
They have their own turf and they WILL someday become human.
Well yes the "spirits" within these vehicals will get a better vehical someday.  (Human).
It is quite
possible that the life ensouling the plants and animals we exist with here
on earth will NEVER become human, because they belong to a separate
INVOLVING life, rather than an EVOLVING life.
Possibly.
I don't find your writing pleasant or peaceful as a discussion.

Sorry.
I think
you can make points without being so emotionally involved with what you are
saying.  Can't you please calm down and try to discuss ideas and issues and
not be so "off the mark."  You are not referring to what I have said or
written and you are throwing out remarks that relate to nothing.
Well having read the above, I thought that it was leading again away from the self as an immortal ever existing being and that each living thing has the same type of "spirit".  Yes all vehicals are different, some alien to  us but.....
Please try
to rewrite the remainder of your comments in a way that they encourage
friendly conversation and discussion.  I am not pretending to put forth
ideas that I like.  I am being sincere in studying other writers
effectively as I can without directing material to you alone. I didn't know

that you felt a need to designate yourself respondent on everything that is
written on our list.
Didn't think I was but ok, I won't do it.  I will simply reply to post directed to me.
If you don't like something, why don't you wait and
see if anyone else receives anything of value from the material before
passing it off as inconceivable or incommunicable.
I am not saying I don't like it. There are quite  a few of the writers that I find fascinating, including you.
I don't know where you get any idea of

"impersonal" from what I have written.
I got that because I thought  it was  describing a state  which implies a sort of evolution or emanation.  Evolution itself implying an earlier lower state.  Again because I see the "spirit" (I am not sure if we understand this word the same) as non evolving, full of knowledge, eternality and bliss, this development system could perhaps lead us to ever more and more development within this universe.  Which I personally  am worried to death about.

This could be rewritten in a more discussive
tone........................................................................

Sorry.  I am not being deliberately non discussive.

The reason for the suffering was that the person identified with the ego's
energies as they were playing through the forms, thereby creating an
attachment to the form side.  There wouldn't be suffering if the person had
identified with the ego as an eternal self, existing beyond the form,

Yes I see that part.
because only slowly does man reach his recognition of himself as a soul.
When this is accomplished, balance and harmony reign because each new
influx of soul power is recognized as being essential to make an impact on
the small, lesser lives in the vehicles, creating characteristics in the
form which serve man well and allow us to free our attention to new vistas.

Unless the term "lesser lives" refers to a material condition, I don't understand.
When this soul power recedes, the forms themselves are asked to continue
the vibration without the presence of the egoic force.

Here I am utterly lost.  Not knowing what is really mean't by Egoic form or even if we have the same understanding of the term Soul?
When they learn to
accomplish this, there's no pain just capacity. Our forms are better than
the animals, for instance.
Yes, I think I have also said that.
When the egoic forces, which are love and
compassion and light energy, leave, the forms continue, but there's no
energy doing the work for them and they find they have to accomplish this
without the ease and pleasure they had before.  The forms have to work, and
if they do, they accomplish progressed physical, emotional, or mental
states.  The matter and vibration becomes more built by the ego.  Matter
acting on its own, like an ego, isn't painful, is it?  So the pain arises
from something pleasureful, like love - as part of the egoic energy - being
withdrawn.  A mother, too, slowly withdraws her assistance so that her
children can accomplish activity on their own.  This isn't so unusual, so
just calm down and think.  How does a child learn to walk, except by a
letting go of those two little hands?
This sound rather nice.  It seems to imply that we are helped up the planes?    Problem is, I don't really see the point in going any higher in this universe.  I can see the point in getting to this human state from others however.

Are you referring to yourself or to the writer of the book?  There isn't
really any mention of individuality.  Can't you perceive that egoic forces
are sent forth in different manners?  Our free will and circumstances in
life ultimately would play in with the scene.  How can you assert such
nonsense?

No I am having trouble with this I am afraid. Sorry about that.  It looks like I have may have misunderstood what you mean by Egoic forces.  I thought that an Egoic force was being presented as an individual and the term is alien to me, it seems to me to describe the steady build up of the material or this universes  personality?  Then it seems the "individual is some how being emanated and developed.  Not sure if I am getting this right?


>>
>> An ego is an individual, SO STOP COMPLAINING.

>>
>>
>> If the ego did not withdraw its energies periodically, there would never be
>> the accomplishment of having our activity occur harmoniously and smoothly
>> without undue attention. This is karma. Also, The harmony we are looking
>> for is threefold: 1) outgoing Ego contacts body and outer world - this
>> repetition of contact causes automatic activity, 2) the adjustment by the
>> logoic lifewaves to keep harmony as both the Ego's bodies and the lesser
>> lives around the Ego (plants, animals, minerals) go without Egoic contact,
>> and 3) the automatic Ego impress flooding the body and keeping it
>> controlled and working efficiently.
>>
>> Now the Ego can "view" its Self in its sheaths and can experience "being"
>> this way, but the Ego cannot do so (with all of its new unfolding powers)
>> independently of the form and this is a goal, because while the Egos use
>> form to experience and learn, they're aim is to retain this coloring
>> independently of reincarnation in form.

But I can't see this if we have a ever existing perfect vehical for our "self" in the supernal world?  Although I can see it as a material progression for a covered "self" in this universe?
The way to learn this is for the
>> egoic energy to withdraw back into the ego, an act associated with pain.
>> Yogis are especially attentive to whether their ego is energizing the form
>> or withdrawing from the form. Their concept of non-attachment is practiced
>> so that they can experience existing beyond form. As long as these energies
>> occur in cycles, we are providing Ishvara with time with her children and
>> providing the children time to exist without egoic control. This is the
>> highest harmony, but sometimes people don't recognize that Ishvara is at
>> work nor that matter can act in a limited sense without constant egoic
>> supervision.
Doesn't Ishvara withdraw at the Kalpas end?  Again I am having problems because of the terms "existing" without form.  As I understand it, no form means diffusion?
>This was not in my material at all.  If you are concerned about this, don't

bring it up as a comment to my paper, but write your own new message.
Ok
No, it doesn't. Can't you picture the book discussing a portion of what
occurs in life rather than expecting to be given the whole entire large
picture at once?  Just because this one process is occurring doesn't mean
there aren't many, many more processes at play as well.  You are probably
missing something regarding how our material life builds the ego, because
this is the old familiar way to present life.  We are building souls to
live in some day.  Well, what if those soul qualities exist, but can't be
felt because we aren't far enough in the number of human lives needed to
have acquired access to the soul's vibration finding a home in our material
bodies.  You can think different ideas, can't you, without accepting as
final any of them?
Yes.
I know that perhaps theosophy isn't your cup of tea if you can't open
yourself up to possibilites without using such offensive words and phrases,
and over nothing, in my mind.
Not trying to be offensive, really. It must be my terrible nature.
There are two types of EGO pertaining to the marginal or conditional
being.  1. False Ego,  that
>is the ego  covering our real natures and this developes according to our
experience in this
>alternate universe.
>
Write your own deep message if your thoughts are sent in some opposing
direction.  Why don't you try to find a great quote similar to this:
Without Ego or self referal you have NOTHING.  It doesn't register with me
at all.
Well I can't understand how something not able to say "I am" that is have self referal, exists as consciousness. Surely the first primal nature of consciouness is self awareness.  If you don't have self awareness what is there to be aware of something else?I am sorry I just cannot answer this question. Call me a stupid fool if you like but I  just can't understand it.

Thank you for your detailed letter, I will study it to the best of my ability and take on the points you make.
Sorry if I upset you, that really was not my intention.  I hope I have given some indication as to why I thought what I did re the previous posting.I will only reply to persons who direct their postings to me through the digest or directly and I will only do this if a specific question is asked.