Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00070)

Sept 7th 1998

Dar Rihle:

May I interject some comments in what you write ?

Dallas

> From: "Richard Ihle" <rihle@aol.com>
> Sent:	Sunday, September 06, 1998 7:20 PM
> Subject: Reader's Report--Corrected

In a message dated 9/6/98 8:14:18 AM Central Daylight Time,
he/she (just
kidding, Dal) writes:

<<
 The reason for this is that as you grasp, the source of
 CONSCIOUSNESS is the ONE SPIRIT and its incarnated "Ray" in
every
 being, -- and, in mankind this is sharpened and focused in the
 Manas/mind.  It has become awake and gives independence.
  >>
		SNIPPED SOME HERE

On to the issue of "the source of CONSCIOUSNESS [being] the ONE
SPIRIT and its incarnated 'Ray,' etc.":

Undoubtedly, much if not most of what Dal and others write about
this is true when looked at in a certain way.  Terminology, of
course, is one killer when trying to communicate these abstract
concepts.  An even more formidable killer, in my opinion,
however, is the failure to realize where these abstract concepts
originally came from, even those recorded in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

I would say that is our common starting point	Dal
====================================================

I, at least, have no doubt whatever that Theosophists of the past
utilized the
"analogical method."  That is, they were careful observers of
their own inner
states of consciousness during meditative sessions and then used
the commonly reversed "as below, so Above" technique to put
together a larger world view.

Such a view point would relate solely to images arising in the
"Astral Light."


The "spiritual point of view," arising in buddhi (wisdom of
experience over many incarnations) would look directly on a
problem and show where a similar set of circumstances occurred
before, and what the present Karmic environment currently is and
will be, and thus lead the confused inquirer to see the best
course for action in terms of duty and necessity.	Dal

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


HPB's slightly modified version of the famous axiom says it all:
(approx.)
"The breath became a stone; the stone a plant; the plant an
animal; the animal a man; the man an angel; the angel [God/a
god?]."  Only a person who has never sat in meditation and tried
to fight these progressive "attention-snatchers" would not
suspect that at least on one level the breath is the energy, the
stone is body sensation, the plant is the dreamlike,
emotion-tainted content, the animal is the monolog which starts
up while still associated with the inner pictures, the man is the
ongoing words remaining when the imagery drops off, the angel is
the ideational content paradoxically still present as specific
verbal correlatives seem to dissolve away, etc.


I think that is an excellent way to start - now how is it to be
checked with universal experience and can anyone else arrive at
the view-points you define ?

How would they relate to the 7-fold principles of man and nature
?
Dal.



So anyway, we have these true Theosophists watching more or less
the same inner sequence for perhaps thousands and thousands of
years.  Is it too far-fetched to imagine that the thought came to
many of them, "If that is what my own inner life is like, perhaps
that is how things are macrocosmically as well"?  No, not
far-fetched to me, at least.


As you said earlier we are trying to adjust terminology so that
ideas can be melded.  I would not quite use the characterization
you employ for the students of Theosophy who have worked for
1,000s of years.  How does the idea of Egoic immortality work in
with our "personal" thinking and experience in this life - as an
instance ?  	Dal.

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

Which brings us directly to the subjects of Consciousness,
Spirit, manas,
duality etc.  In my opinion, all of these things will just remain
a jumble
unless one logs some serious meditation time.  Jerry S., it seems
to me, is
right on the money when he talks about duality and "heads
necessarily taking the tails right along with it" etc.  I suppose
the major place I might start dragging my feet a little with his
view may possibly be on issue of
translating the term ~manas~ as "mind." (For some reason I,
rightly or
wrongly,  suspect he may be using it interchangeably with
~soul~--and which, although I suppose correct, from my point of
view presents a somewhat confusing situation since, for example,
in Psychogenetic terminology, a person with Fourth-Degree
Self-realization merely means that the individual retains enough
untransformed Undifferentiated Consciousness to be able to
mediate [keep a Once-Removed Vantage upon, "ensoul"] all the
possible differentiated conditions of consciousness below
kama-manas consciousness--e.g., the "semi-Self," egoic delusions
"I am my energy"; "I am my body/physical sensations"; "I am my
desires and the feelings which are generated by them."  A
Fifth-Degree "soul," by contrast, can operate as the
"upadhi,"--in other words, ~ensoul~-- all the former content and
kama-manas delusions as well--but alas, not the pure,
dispassionate manas delusions like "I really Am all these ideas I
am presenting right now." . .).


>From what is offered above we apparently jump into definitions
that are assumed but not linked as a gradient of understanding
from the simplicity of the dual Manas to the complexity of
"4th-degree," and, "5th degree" "Self-realization."  If  those
terms can be simply introduced and explained in terms of the
basis adopted we may gradually grow to understand what you mean.

I am not of the opinion that terms which are undefined raises
anyone over others except in their own perception, so please help
the ignorant.	Dal.

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

But, jumping to what seems to me is the fundamental analogical
insight of all meditation-based-observational-analogical
Theosophy:  Undifferentiated
Consciousness is the beginning/ending point of everything.  This,
naturally,
is in direct opposition to most modern scientific psychology
which generally
holds the idea that consciousness is something which ~appears~ at
a certain point in biological evolution.  Which view is "really"
correct?  Well, I don't know.  I do know one thing, however:  I
can DO a lot more in
practical/psychological/adept/magical terms with the former as my
"working
hypothesis" rather than the latter.


My question (which need not be answered) is what do you achieve ?
As a person much can be achieved basing ones' self on a
meditative point.  But what is the point selected ?  Why is it
selected ?  In other words what are the motives you employ ?
 Answers to these questions are for your own self, not me. ]

Which is likely to be more sure and certain ?  The personal or
the universal ?		Dal



And, of course, it corroborates Jerry S.'s view on duality quite
nicely, if
one thinks of Undifferentiated Consciousness as the "One" (Atma,
Brahman,
Purusha) and then everything else (Prakriti) "emanates" from it
and becomes
the potential field for all dualities.  Here, of course, it is
important to
realize that ~Spirit~ is not Consciousness itself, but only a
potential
"vehicle" for it (in unanalogized human terms, the Atma-Buddhi
state).  Thus,
Spirit and matter can be a duality, but they are "head and tail"
of the same
thing (Prakriti or "Substance"--which seems to include everything
from energy
to emotions to inner pictures, to word-based thought etc.).
Indeed, the most
basic of all Theosophical ideas is probably the notion that
Undifferentiated
Consciousness becomes "entrapped" by the realm of duality (all
the forms of differentiated consciousnesses) just because Purusa
(Self) unfortunately
shares with Spirit (the most subtle gradient of "matter") the
same super-
rarefied nature which allows for interpenetration
("contamination").


Duality by itself does not exist, as it springs from a UNITY, and
these three taken together form the first metaphysical triangle
or ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS in manifestation.  Out of manifestation it
is the UNITY of the ABSOLUTENESS - undifferentiated and
indescribable.

Best wishes to you		Dal

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


Does any of this abstract stuff really matter?  Well, to those
who have no
Adept aspirations whatever, I sometimes wonder how it could
really matter.
Perhaps many people want to be comforted by the
it-doesn't-really-end-here
component of the "Theosophical Philosophy" or something.  To me
it matters for
a different reason, of course, since I figure if that"as below so
Above" was
used to create all these grand ideas in the first place, one can
use "as Above
so below" to rediscover the highly useful esoteric psychological
and other
realities upon which they were based.

Anyway, and all in all with the full authority of my own
hard-earned view,
~Theosophist~ and ~Adept~ should probably always be used with
capital letters;
furthermore, one should probably never be ashamed to admit to
either title
once one honestly feels he or she is at least 1%, or even
.000000001% toward
the Good. . . .

For God's sake let us leave this world, and the rather odd
Theosophical
context we have all gravitated to, with something we think is to
our credit
besides our own worn-out academic eyes and the ready ability to
make the eyes
of others glaze over when we fall off our readers' chairs. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle