Theos-Talk Archives (October 1998 Message tt00010)

[Jerry]
>This sounds like the requirements for Crossing the Abyss.

>
>DALLAS
>
>AGREED  -- But what I am trying to say is that the SPIRITUAL RAY
>(or MONAD) which is at the core of our being is indestructible,
>and persists, since SPIRIT (as its sources) is equally
>indestructible.
>

But what I am trying to say is that our spiritual Monad exists
whether we are aware of it or not, whether we are selfish or
not, and whether we are "good" or not.



>As said above:  if SPIRIT is ONE WITH the  ABSOLUTE as its
>highest emanation, why should anything pertaining to the SPIRIT
>(whether individual or as a "whole" be obliterated ?
>
>If that were possible KARMA would not operate and the cause for
>the reincarnation of Universes could not be.
>
>I feel that we are missing something here.
>

We are. Individuality implies, by its very definition, separation.
Separation is a heresy in Buddhism, and I would like to think in
Theosophy as well. HPB clearly distinquishes between personality 
and individuality, but both are maya or illusion. 


>To me the MONAD  (Atma-Buddhi) is a permanency - and "immortal
>being" which persists before, during and after current
>manifestation.
>

Our Atma-Buddhi will persist for the length of this manvantara, and 
no longer.


>When the "dew drop" sinks into the shining Sea it becomes ONE
>WITH  all the rest.  But because of the accretions left by MANAS
>upon and within it, it retains its individuality.  I DON'T KNOW
>HOW ELSE TO SAY THIS.
>

I suspect that you are wishful thinking. I don't think that manas
has anything to do with the Monad except to express it on lower
levels of manifestation. But we can say, in a sense, that even
the Monad retains a degree of individuality and will put forth a
new ray at the beginning of the next manvantara. But I am as
certain as I can be that consciousness on the monadic level
has no trace of any individuality or sense of self at all.


>Perhaps it is because we are limited in thought to the qualities
>of this Universe only - but, logically for there to be any
>"qualities" or Individuality centered in the MONAD there has to
>be cause and precedent. 

But also logically the whole notion of cause and precedent
requires the notion of time, and time has no existence at
all for the Monad which is outside of time altogether. Without
time, there can be neither cause nor effect.


 HPB writing "as an Occultist" states in
>her short article ISIS UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA
>[THEOSOPHIST, January 1886 ] states:
>
> "...that though merged entirely into Parabrahm, man's spirit
>while not individual per se, yet preserves its distinct
>individuality in Paravirvana owing to the accumulation in it of
>the aggregates, or skandhas that have survived after each death,
>from the highest faculties of the Manas.  The most
>spiritual -i.e., the highest and divinest aspirations of every
>personality follow Buddhi and the Seventh Principle Into Devachan
>(swarga) after the death of each personality along the line of
>rebirths, and become part and parcel of the Monad."   [ HPB Art.
>III, 265 ULT ]
>
>

I have no problem with the quote because HPB's Parabrahm
and Paranirvana are meant to imply the first or second cosmic
planes of our 7 plane solar system, and the Divine Monad is
outside of this system altogether. I would point out, that modern
Tibetan Buddhists teach that the lower four planes are samsara
and the higher three are nirvana, and paranirvana (Parabrahm
is a Hindu term) is outside the whole system. This may, in fact,
be another small disconnect between HPB and Tibetan teachings,
but I am not sure.


>I know that you got this HPB, but I think its more poetical than
>literal.
>There simply is no such grandiose organization.
>
>
>DALLAS
>
>HPB describes this in greater detail in one of her letters to Mr.
>A.P.Sinnett  p. 242-3 of that book - Do you have it ?
>

Yes, but its still more poetical than literal.


>THE LETTERS OF H.P.BLAVASKY TO A.P.SINNETT
>
>In addition the whole of the SECRET DOCTRINE gives hints and
>clues as to these great beings and the duties and
>responsibilities that they assume in the formation and guidance
>of our world and of humanity in so far as knowledge and wisdom
>are concerned.
>

This is all very true of astral, mental, and causal plane residents.
My disagreement here is that this kind of organized stuff takes
place on the physical plane. I just don't believe it, except in small
isolated pockets of course.  The formation and guidance of our 
world, according to Buddhism, is via our own collective karma.
I tend to side with Buddhists on this one.


>Would you object to the existence of the many hierarchies of
>University and Academic kinds extant in our world ?
>

They do indeed exist, and they are very protective and jealous
of their own powers and influences.


>I don't believe this for a second. Such a "union" is called a
>mystical experience, and it happens to millions of people
>every year who don't have a clue what happened. The union
>has to be fully assimilated first, and this can take many years.
>
>
>DALLAS
>
>I would refer you to Patanjali's Yoga Sutras which describes this
>and other powers.  Most of Book III covers these.  Would you like
>to have a copy in case you are not aware of this ?
>

I read Patanjali back in my teens, and I currently have Tamani's
translation, which is excellent. Thank you, though. Patanjali is OK. 
Its your interpretation that I have a problem with.  The idea of powers 
is pervasive in Hinduism, but they are much harder to gain than 
it seems on the surface, and after an Adept gains most of these 
powers they tend not to use them (go figure). Powers, according
to my reading of Patanjali comes from strenuous exercises of
samyana (spelling??) and not just from a mystical experience. 
I have had mystical experiences myself, over the last 30 years,
and am still waiting for all of these powers I hear about.


>DALLAS
>
>Quantitatively I have no idea, but in the eternity of the Past,
>there must be quite a vast number, when we consider the multitude
>of stars and worlds it would seem that each develops its own
>hierarchies of Wise and Devoted Men-Minds which assist as the
>Adepts and Masters of Wisdom do in this vast and ancient work.
>

Careful of such terms as "Men-Minds" as they tend to offend the
women readers. Actually, I agree with you here.

>I find it inspiring to know that we have such examples available
>to us, in thought, if not in actual physical presence.  I would
>also say that the body of the writings of HPB go far to
>demonstrate this as a fact - if the coherency and reasonableness
>go for anything among us.
>

OK.



>DALLAS
>
>The Masters in writing Sinnett stated that the THEOSOPHICAL
>SOCIETY  was not established to be a "School of Magic."
>

But what do you think Magic is? It is the practical application
of occultism. Period.


>>From the outset, HPB's first pubic article:  "A FEW QUESTIONS TO
>HIRAF." And then continued through all she wrote to her final
>article MY BOOKS  is a record of the knowledge that Theosophy
>gives on the subject of the hidden laws and rules of Nature - and
>that is "magic" or WISDOM.  So each one of us can draw on that to
>the extent that he is able/
>

No, HPB did not teach magic. She taught occultism. The former
is practical. The latter is theoretical. Her words and writings are
mostly theory. What good are hidden rules and laws of nature if
we can't access them? Where does she give us rituals to do this?
She went into detail with theory, but gave out very little in terms
of practical application (which is magic).



>DALLAS
>
>I never heard of the "hundredth money effect"
>
>But, I would agree with you that anything that we do
>constructively and positively helps all the rest to some extent.
>

Basically it says that the first time something is done, its very difficult.
However, it gets easier and easier as more people do it. 


>DALLAS
>
>I think you mean "UNSELFISHNESS" ?
>
>The "gaining" is as described by HPB in the first quote from her
>article given above - the ADDITIONS and accretions to the MONAD.
>

I am aware of her teachings. But I want you to think about this
rather than just take her literally.


>As I understand it all we need to do is to learn and understand
>what Nature intends for us to do and work at.
>

All? Such learning and understanding require lifetimes.

>Consider with me that we are here (perhaps involuntarily) - and
>many behave as though they had a right to be rebellious -
>considering that they ought not to be bound by any of the laws of
>brotherhood, cooperation, or inter-action.
>

I believe we are all voluntary, albeit unconscious. Also, we have the
right to be rebellious if we want to. Laws should not be binding. HPB
herself said that golden chains bind just as surely as iron chains. I
have to reject any "laws" that are binding on me in any way.


>Now if this were true, then none of us would be living or in this
>kind of physical, psychic, and mental existence at all.  We would
>all be flying off to our own little corner of isolation - 

We do in our dreams at night and in our daily fantasies.


>We depend
>on air and water, and food, and the assistance of innumerable
>known and unknown beings, men, animals, etc - the organization of
>our body is stupendous - and we really have not lifted so much as
>an occasional finger to assist 

This is the Buddhist theory of dependent origination, and yes, I
agree with it.


>Since we witness the contrary, and Nature allows us to live,
>there is something to be said for cooperation and human
>solidarity, as well as sharing. 

What is nature that it "allows" us to live? Nature, as far as I know,
is just another word for our collective karma, or at least a major
aspect of it.


> We get a lot of things for
>nothing, and we are debtors to the givers all the time.  If we
>have a shred of gratitude, we would then be seeking the ways in
>which we could carry our share and give in turn, assistance to
>others.
>

No, I don't think we should be helping others out of gratitude or out
of shame or out of any other emotional characteristic. We should
do it only as self-expression, and nothing more. You cannot shame
a person into being an Adept. 


>We are (most of us) so imbued with clannishness, with family,
>with nation and race and religion, and with our own personal
>make-up, that we find it difficult to extend our horizon of
>companionship to all who approach us.  L think several of us in
>the past have echoed these ideas.  Every great sage or prophet
>has said the same.  Theosophy does the same, and adds the
>important aspect of clear logic and reason, as well as history to
>assist us in convincing ourselves of the reasonableness of the
>First Object of the T S .
>

OK


>DALLAS
>....
>But I am sure you know this very well and the definitions are to
>be found in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY and in the THEOSOPHICAL
>GLOSSARY, both by HPB.
>

Yes, but this has nothing at all to do with answering the question of 
who is advancing? Are you suggesting that our Monad, which is
already spiritual and perfect, needs to be even more perfect?


>DALLAS
>HPB seems to speak and imply that the "life-wave" is a group of
>similar egoic types which move and live together bound by certain
>temporary qualities of similitude.  But as individual Karma is
>made an operates, those bonds may be made stronger or relaxed and
>in time other connections and bonds are made.  When you consider
>the enormous amount of time consumed in this process (see SD II
>68-70) there is ample time for all sorts and kinds of
>relationships to form and change.
>
>
OK

>Theosophy does speak of black magicians and of those who conceive
>of and plan evil - it seem reasonable to me - if only as a
>contrast or polar opposite of those who live for and do "good."
>

Black magicans are not those who do evil. Rather they are magicans
who try to preserve their ego's. They are egotistical and rather in love
with themselves, but no more evil than anyone else.

Jerry S.