Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00285)

Aug 16th 1998

Dear Jerry:

Allow me to interject some comments below

Dal

> Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 12:36 PM
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya

>>There are many who believe that this life in this Personality is the only
>>life we will ever live, and they act accordingly.  Are they wrong, or just
>>mistaken, because the effort to carry thought  out of the personal into
the
>>Individual has not yet been mastered  ?
>
>This life is, indeed, the only life that any personality will live. For the
>ego, its a one-time deal. This is why the ego fears death--and rightly
>so.
================================================
DALLAS

The "thirst for life -- 'TANHA'" is said in Buddhist philosophy to be the
cause for the fear of death.  When the personal consciousness realizes that
its conclusion at "death" is not its total and entire annihilation, it can
perhaps breathe a little easier, and then begin to build a bridge of
hope-consciousness that will extend through the "after-death states" --
Kamaloka and Devachan -- to its next life reassembage that marks a new
beginning for all the "old stuff" now rejuvenated, energized and ready to go
on further.  Something like that occurs every morning when we reawake, but
of course the physical body does not change much during the interval of its
unconsciousness -- while the inner, the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS on the psychic and
spiritual levels may be very active.  [  HPB suggests and studies this in
TRANSACTIONS,  pp. 66 - 76  in the ULT edition of these. ]

Such a view (including hope that one is not mistaken) seem to dampen
anxiety -- at last for me.  First one has to realize and accept the idea
that death is inevitable -- in one way or another.  [ Perhaps those who have
had an NDE ---near death experience -- are better equipped than those who
have not, in the sense that they know there is a continuing Egoity or Entity
that survives the "death" of the present body/personality. ]
===========================================
>
>>What do we know that they don't ?  The only tool we employ for this inner
>>conviction of continuity is the idea of Egoity -- of a continuing Self (a
>>"Spiritual Ahankara ?") which is the animus the energizer within. And we
>>endow it mentally with the power to survive death.
>>
>
>When I raise my consciousness to the Ego level, death seems silly
>and I no longer fear it at all. When I return to my body, the certainty
>of my own death scares the devil out of me.

==============================================
DALLAS:

I like that phrase that YOU raise by deliberate effort YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS

to the EGOIC LEVEL  As to why the personal consciousness is scared I do not
know.  Not my experience.  But YOU theReal Man is the "boss."  He uses by
willing the tools that he is master of.

===================================

>
>>Using this as one of the arguments, the structure that we may construct as
>a
>>demonstration of reincarnation is supplemented from the records of the
>>Adepts who as CONSCIOUS BEINGS have survived such changes and have
>witnessed
>>the changes that every human goes through after the death of this
>>personality.  At least that is how I see it.  HPB speaks to this point in
>>detail in the KEY.
>>
>
>If the "records of the Adepts" makes you happy, then go for it, my friend.
>It does help stimulate my intuition a bit, but the only thing that I have
>found to really be helpful are my own transpersonal experiences.
================================================
DALLAS

Mediative conclusions, and visions emerging from a nights' meditation may
perhaps also be "transpersonal"  -- if genuine they get us a memory that is
not affected by the "psychic/personal" filter we use all the time when we
are awake.  But it is said that all intuitions and visions ought to be
checked with the active mind for accuracy and their melding with
philosophical and theosophical doctrines.

=============================================
>
>
>>I used the term "thought men" to indicate an individual who thinks and
uses
>>the mind.
>>
>
>OK.
>
>>If we "use the mind" then the mind is a tool of the Real Man.
>
>But it is also the "Slayer of the Real." The "Real Man" doesn't
>need it or use it at all. The whole point or goal of yoga and
>meditation is to go beyond the mind.
>
YES, BUT MANAS IS DUAL DEPENDING ON THE ORIENTATION WE GIVE TO IT.
It is the "Lower Manas, immersed in Kama, that is the "Slayer of the REal."
and that "real" is what filtes down to us from the plane of Buddhi-Manas, or
the "Higher Mind."
And as I understand it, that is not to be destoyed but rathe studied.

============================================
>
> >You speak of
>>rising above ratiocination, logic, etc., and the use of the mind --
perhaps
>>this is intuition ?
>
>Yes, and also spirituality.
=====================================

CERTAINLY  --   BUT THIS IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM PSYCHIC PERCEPTIONS
from THE ASTRAL PLANE IF WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT.

=========================
>
>
>> I look at the "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali," which seem to
>>throw the most comprehensive light on the functions of the mind and the
>Self that uses it.  It appears there that the various steps of
self-discipline
>>are quite explicit.
>>
>
>I used these yogas too many years ago. I like them. But they are
>pointing out a way or path, and they are not pointing out Truth. There
>are, in fact, many ways and many paths. I agree on the need for
>self-discipline, and this is true for any real spiritual path.
=================================

TO ME THEY ARE TOOLS AND IEAS,  NOT "YOGAS"  HOWEVER THEY SEEM TO ASSUME
THAT TRUTH IS A CONSTANT AND THAT IT IS THE OBJECT OF THE SEEKER.  They seem
to me to indicate the pathway of self-development that employs the mind as
an instrument.  In writing this booklet and in studying, a distinction is to
be constantly made between the "Higher Mind"  (Buddhi-Manas), and the "Lower
Mind," ( Kama-Manas) -- and it is not always easy to do this.

I DO NOT LIKE TO USE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHIC PRACTICES, BEING UNCERTAIN OF
MY OWN CONTROL OF THEM, AS WELL AS UNCERTAIN OF THE PROFICIENCY OF AN
"OPERATOR" (or "guru").  I have seen and heard of too many serious
imparments of mind and body that have occurred after some misguided
practices were used.  So I am very cautious.  First I want to understand.
Did you ever read Bulwer-Lytton's ZANONI, or his other A STRANGE STORY ?  If
you hve you will know one of the reasons why I am so cautious.

================================

>
>>As to a description of the relative functions and faculties of ATMA,
>>BUDDHI,  MANAS -- I have used the KEY as a base to study these and as well
>>various statements found in the SD  ( Vol. I  570-575)  as an example.
The
>>positions, values and conditions of these faculties (principles) above or
>>below some "Abyss" is not understood.
>
>No, but it will be when you experience all of this stuff. Until then you
can
>either take my word for it, or throw my words away. Its your choice.
>Its actually all pretty dicey, because experiences above the Abyss
>cannot be put into words and are formless. Its only later, after such
>experiences, that the human mind puts words and forms to the experience
>in an effort to come to grips with what happened as well as to communicate
>with others. If my words are poorly chosen, I have to apologise. I am
>doing my best.

=======================================
DALLAS
Agreed  it is true that each has his own views.


===========================================>
>> As I say above:  where does HPB speak
>>of an "Abyss ?"  Why should there be one in a spherical UNIVERSE that has
>no
>>limits of extension ?
>
>Where did you get this idea? HPB clearly tells us that our 7-plane solar
>system is only one of many, and is very limited. I don't recall anywhere
>her saying that it is spherical, although it is in the sense that her
Globes
>make a circlular motion around the planetary chain. The Abyss itself is
>actually the plane containing Globes A' and G' (names given by G de P).
>Its the third plane downward, fifth upward. Without this plane and its two
>Globes, we have ten Globes to exactly match the Qabalistic Tree.
>While I am on this circular business, please note that life flows around
>HPB's Earth planetary chain of Globes widdershins--exoterically the
>direction of evil, and esoterically the direction of magic. Just one
>insteresting sidenote that I discovered awhile back.


=============================================
DALLAS

As far as I am concerned I assumed that all plane page diagrams have always
represented a volume in space.  Hence the 7-fold "planes" that HPB uses in
diagrams and tables ought to be viewed as volumes  -- or "spheres."  HPB in
describing the Globes and their inter-relation says in one place that they
ought to be considered as in "coadunition, but not in consubstantiality."

Consciousness (as I understand it) opearates spherically and is not limited
to a flat plane or to "linearity."

Hence if there is an "Abyss" using the Kabalistic word idea, then it may be
a laya center  (perhaps a sphere ?) a passage between two planes, which
under karma exists for the transfer from one to the other, and may also
indicate a null point where adjustments are made under nature's Laws.  If we
consider that Nature contains all and is our great Teacher, then we are all
assured of eventually reaching a complete understanding of all her secrets.
But, many of us are in a hurry, and think we can get them in "3 minutes and
a half, while standing on one leg." as the old saying goes.

Looking  again at page 200, Vol. 1, SD,
It occurs to me that HPB must have a reason for omitting the 3 missing
Sephiroth, although she gives them their due place in other sections of the
book.

The TRIANGLE that embraces the undescribed planes is placed in balance over
the two sides of the diagram.

It may be that de Puruker sought to bring in those three Sephiroth into that
Diagram in a way which satisfied his conclusions.  But that to me has not
been a matter of importance. I also refer to SD II  590 - 605  (where she
goes into the mystery of the IAO) and, 611- 627, 630 - 641.
=============================================
>
>>As you say our understanding of what Theosophy teaches may seem to be at
>>variance, and we may have approached it by different paths and therefore
>use
>>terms that either of us are not completely familiar with -- so we agree in
>>some things and seem to disagree in others, but as I see it, we both
profit
>>from the encounter, and I can certainly see that there are further depths
>to
>>be plumbed for me.
>>
>>Thanks for your consideration.
>>
>>Best wishes as always,
>>
>>Dallas
>>
>
>Thank you, Dallas. I appreciate your zeal and enthusiasm. Hopefully we
>will help each other here.
>
>Jerry S.

=========================================

GOOD,  I AM ENJOYING THIS.  Thanks        Dal.

==================================