Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00021)

>Jerry:
>
>Regarding the idea of liberation in a single lifetime,
>we have to consider a number of questions. Liberation
>from what? For how long? And why?
>

Agreed.

>But is the world hellish? Is it important to get out
>of here as soon as possible? Are their qualities of
>consciousness denied us because we are on this lowly
>physical plane?
>

Good questions.


>First, I'd say that I think that the kind of
>liberation achieved in a single lifetime is short-lived.
>It would be like leaving school early in the afternoon,
>and taking a day or two off. It might result in a
>few skipped lifetimes, but not true escape from the
>wheel of birth and rebirth.
>

Well, I don't have an opinion on this one. According
to the Tibetans, at least in theory, the idea is to
become a relatively karmaless bodhisattva which
means that even though liberation is within reach,
it is deliberately rejected.


>As to karma going on forever, it's like saying that
>buddhi has to be one of our seven principles forever.

I would think that as long as we are in manifestation
somewhere on the four lower cosmic planes, that we
would be under karma of some kind. I never intended
to suggest that becoming fully karmaless was an
ideal to strive for; rather to suggest it as a possibility
to those who find the endless turning of the Wheel
to be depressing (I find it t o be so, because it
suggests that there is no hope but the same old same
old over and again ad infinite, which as an adventuring
monadic pilgrim, I find terribly boring).

There is yet another problem to the exoteric idea of
karma, one that is found simply by looking at India
over the past few centuries. India and its idea of
eternal reincarnation, according to many Western
experts, is backward technologically and socially
(caste systems, low opinion of women, etc) BECAUSE
of its exoteric view of reincarnation which suggests
to the people that, don't worry about today because
we can fix our problems in a future life. Many experts
suggest that the rise of technology and social
conscience in the West is due to the Western belief in
only one life. In a sense, I am trying to combine the best
of both views, resulting in a more esoteric view if
reincarnation in which we can all agree that we will
live future lives but meanwhile try our very best to
get as much from this one as possible.

>Karma is basically relationship, living bonds between
>beings, a dynamic give-and-take that can contain, at
>any point in time, unfinished business, things still
>needing resolution. Anywhere, everywhere we come into
>being, we interact with others, make karma, and become
>at home. The karmic bonds are those of caring, of
>shared living, of co-dependence, of mutual participation
>in life. To become karma-less in a particular world
>means to have worked out and left behind all ties
>with beings on that world, while at the same time
>forging bonds with fellow beings elsewhere.
>

Agreed. The only "ties" to others that we should
maintain is our compassion for them (which will,
by itself, bring about future lives).


>I'm not sold on the importance of liberation. The
>goal of becoming a non-being on this world, seeking
>life elsewhere, begs the basic purpose of life, as
>I understand it: expressiveness.

Well, OK, but we each get to express it in our own
way. The importance of liberation is mainly the very
fact that such a thing is possible. Its possibility implies
that we do, in fact, have some control over our destiny,
that we need not be victims to our past karmic burdens.
Just doing good deeds is not enough because this
simply builds golden chains. Now most of us would
probably consider golden chains to be just fine. But
Gnosis (or perhaps wisdom) is even more important.
I can enjoy living a mortal existence as long as I think
I know why am I doing it, and what the rules are. But
one aspect of rebirth that always bothers me is the
idea of coming back without this inner certainty.
Besides, I don't feel that most of us have to worry
much about being liberated in this life. Its likely that
just slowly working toward such a goal is enough
(but this goal is not suggested in the exoteric version
of reincarnation, whose primary thrust to to replace
iron chains with golden chains).


 One should seek, I
>think, to become an outlet of greater and greater
>light in the world, being more-and-more creative,
>compassionate, wise, helpful. This is the opposite
>of exiting the scene for greener pastures.
>

Agreed. Its not so much looking for greener
pastures as it is realizing that our current pasture
is simply not big enough any more. Perhaps
one feels that one has outgrown it?  Anyway,
I am convinced that the desire for escape won't
get us very far.


>The highest liberation, as I see it, is from the
>distorting aspect of the personality, of the pettiness
>of the lower mind, of the selfish nature. Then one
>can allow the higher, deeper aspects of life to
>shine through one, untainted and unsullied by one's
>lower nature.
>

Agreed.

>I'd agree that Theosophy is not Buddhism, nor any
>popular religion, even if there are close correspondences
>at times. You may have been thinking of the Purucker
>quote I posted once, when you mention that I proposed
>"that Theosophy is simply not Buddhism."
>

Right. And it doesn't have to be in agreement down the
line with Buddhism. However, I find the differences to
be rather fascinating.  For one thing, I have to ask myself
why the discrepancy. Is it something that she was directed
to omit, or was she not aware of it? For example, I see
no real conflict between Theosophy and emptiness but
it is very possible that emptiness was too difficult a
doctrine to even try to present to the West at the time.

Jerry S.