Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00001)

Nov 1st 1998

COMMENTS INTERJECTED BELOW		--		Dallas

> From: Jerry Schueler
> Sent:	Saturday, October 31, 1998 8:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Mind and Memory

[Dallas:]
>Dear Jerry:
>
>I would respectfully disagree with your assessment - if HPB is
>carefully reviewed on all she writes one finds that she covers
in
>outline at least the concepts of the 3 + 3 "upper planes - and
>attaches to them those "perfections" which universalize.
>

This is very confusing, Dallas, and I have to suspect that you
are quoting without understanding. What the heck is 3+3 upper
planes? Do you think that there are 6 upper planes? While
she does mention them in the SD, she says almost nothing about
them and does not include them in her 7-globe model at all.


SORRY  I THOUGHT YOU WERE AWARE OF THE DIAGRAM ON p. 200 of the
SD Vol. 1

THERE ARE 7 PLANES ILLUSTRATED THERE - AND THAT IS IN
MANIFESTATION.

HOWEVER, PRIOR TO THE LIMITS OF MANIFESTATION, THERE ARE THREE
(AT LEAST)
EVEN 3 SUPERIOR PLANES, WHERE, PRIOR TO MANIFESTATION THE IDEAS,
PLANS AND
OBJECTIVES OF REAWAKENING THE UNIVERSE FROM ITS PRALAYIC SLEEP
OCCUR
[ see SD I 57-85 - where the various stages are sketched in the
Stanzas -
that is, as I read and understand it.  Dal. ]



>After all, if "SPIRIT " pervades everything and is supreme then
>our link to THE UNNAMABLE, THE ONE is interior and not exterior.
>It is I the unveiling of interior perception - intuition ? -
that
>is significant.
>

Spirit is NOT supreme in any sense of the word. It is but the
polar opposite of matter. Our link to the ONE is both interior
and exterior, and also neither interior nor exterior. If you
think that you can go in a specific direction to get there, you
are mistaken. Intuition or buddhi can see spirit, but you have
to transcend buddhi to see the ONE, which is divinity
transcending
both matter and spirit.



AGAIN YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT - THE ABSOLUTE IS SUPERIOR, but,
unfortunately
we are not able to find out (from this, our present condition)
what the
details are, except for what is given in these Stanzas we read.



>As to the objective of Nirvana which seems to be described in
>terms of negatives and the escape from personal suffering -
well,
>what about compassion for those who do not see that Way ?  The
>VOICE OF THE SILENCE speaks of "Nirvanas gained and lost out of
>boundless compassion for the world of deluded mortals."  Should
>they (I mean those around us, those who may be seeking for a
>release from the senseless jog-trot of pointless living, I say,
>should those not be helped (to the best of our ability, and to
>the extent that they seek for answers) out of the benevolence we
>may acquire by advancing in perception at a more rapid pace ?
We
>may see that becoming karma-less is the best way of fitting
>ourselves to Nature's ways and methods, but that is almost
>completely the opposite of the hedonism one is surrounded with
on
>all sides every hour in our present world and civilization.
>

The Great Perfection school of Tibetan Buddhism teaches in the
Bodhisattva Vow and its ideal. I don't see why you are arguing
this
point at all.


SEE "VOICE OF THE SILENCE" end of the 3rd Fragment  pp. 77-79 and
Footnotes.  There is an Ideal superior to the "Bodhisattva Vow,"
That of the Nirmanakaya - who renounces Nirvana and resolves to
Remain in the world to help and serve Humanity - and this is what
Gautama the Buddha did.  [ That is as I see it.  And, to me, that
Is inspiring. ]


>This aspect of learning so that we may practice is so very
>important in my mind, and there does not seem to be any other
way
>than isolating ones' self from others - but, is that necessary ?
>is there not such a thing as an inner seclusion - to live in the
>world, doing the things of the world, but not being attached to
>them ?  I wonder ...
>
>Dallas


We need isolation sometimes, but we cannot ever truly be isolated
from anyone. Non-attachment is an important quality, yes.

THANKS JERRY for you views and statements.  Hope my counter-point
is
of some assistance - even if it is not strictly according to the
Theravada / Hinayana teachings.  Mahayana apparently has other
vistas
Under consideration.

Dal.


Jerry S.