Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00023)

SUBJECT:  Jerry Schueler on Nirvana, Jivanmukta, etc.

Daniel responds to Jerry's comments:

Thanks Jerry for your comments below.  It's hard to know where to begin
in reply to your comments.  It appears to me that you suffer from
several confusions.  Maybe not; maybe it's me.  But I will outline what
I see as some of your confusions and everyone reading this can judge for
themselves.

At one point in your replies, you write:

> I have no problem at all with this quote. How does this quote
> help your position? It seems to be saying exactly what I said.
> The Vedantin teaching is that the body is maintained by
> past karma for awhile but produces no new karma (i.e.,
> the cause-effect chain is broken, which you and Dallas
> say is impossible).

Exactly what is my position?  I don't think you have a clue as to what
my position is, especially when you
can write in the above:  ". . . which you and Dallas say is impossible."

Jerry, please do not confuse me with Dallas.  Whatever Dallas may have
written or whatever you think Dallas wrote, please find where I have
said "impossible" in relationship to this karma issue.  I haven't said
"boo" about your discussion with Dallas about the karma issue.  I only
entered the discussion when you made your comments about "jivanmukta".

Again you write at the end of your replies:

> God, Dan. I could say exactly the same for you. But the difference
> between us is that I am only trying to show an alternative viewpoint,
> while you are trying to "prove" something that is unprovable. My
> giving you a zillion quotes will change nothing in your mind at all,
> you know it and I know it, and I don't have the time.

You say I'm trying "to 'prove' something that is unprovable."  And pray
tell, Jerry, what
is that?  What am I trying to prove?  And how do you know it is
"unprovable"?  All I have discussed
is what was in my latest post on "jivanmukta".  So tell me please what
you think I was trying to prove.
One of my points was simply that you were misrepresenting what HPB said
in the quote from THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSSARY.  I don't mean to me
unkind, but do you make stuff up as you write??!!

Now to the rest of your post.
First I wrote:

 >Yet the very last sentence that Dallas quoted above from HPB's
> >Thesophical Glossary reads:
> >
> >"Virtually one who has reached Nirvana during life."
> >
>

And then, Jerry, you replied:

> You can't have it both ways. Either one is incarnated or
> in nirvana, which as I understand it is a discarnate state
> of very high spirituality or is she saying that nirvana is a
> mental state that we can enter while alive? If so, what is
> the difference between that and samadhi? This is not
> the way it is intended in most schools of Buddhism.
> In most schools one becomes a jivamukta while alive
> and then enters nirvana at death. We may be quibbling
> over semantics here.

Let's see if I understand your position.  You seem to be asserting that
"nirvana" is "a DISCARNATE state of very high spirituality".  Then you
say that "in most schools [of Buddhism?] one becomes a jivamukta while
alive and then enters nirvana [ONLY?] at death."

I guess it all depends upon what you mean by "most schools".

According to Dr. Hans Schumann in his book BUDDHISM:

"Nirvana---in the Hinayana understood as victory over Samsara and the
final exit from the world---is in the Mahayana taken as the becoming
conscious of one's own absoluteness (=liberation)  and is a state of
mental aloofness from, but within, the world which does not exclude
active endeavour for the liberation of other beings." (92-93)

This underscores that there is no one definition of Nirvana that is
agreed upon by all schools of Buddhism.  Dr. Charles Prebish in his
HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF BUDDHISM writes:

"Like their Hinayana counterparts, individual Mahayana sects also
interpret the term [Nirvana] differently."  (pp. 203-204)

Dr. G.R. Welbon in his excellent overview article on Nirvana in THE
PERENNIAL DICTIONARY OF WORLD RELIGIONS writes that from a study of the
earliest Buddhist literature, it is clear that "Nirvana is not a
postmortem condition or state.  It is fully attainable here and now.
The Buddha attained it in his lifetime. . . ."

The new OXFORD DICTIONARY OF WORLD RELIGIONS indicates that the word
"nirvana" is found in Hinduism.  For example, in the Bhagavad-gita, it
is written:  "He who forsakes all objects of desire and goes about
without cravings, desires or self-centredness attains serene peace. . .
.Staying in this state, even in his last hour, he attains
brahmanirvana."  2.71 etc.  (p. 703)  This dictionary then states that
in this context, "the attainment of nirvana is moksa."  On p. 650,
concerning Moksa, the interesting statement is made:  "Its [Moksa's]
attainment while alive (jivan-mukti) or discarnate (videha-mukti) marks
the end of rebirth and suffering."

If anyone is interested I can refer them to various books that deal with
Nirvana, etc. in greater detail.

As far as what HPB writes about Nirvana, I quote but 2 extracts:

Nirvana is "the state of absolute existence and absolute consciousness,
into which the Ego of a man who has reached the highest degree of
perfection and holiness during life goes, after the body dies, and
occasionally, as in the case of Gautama Buddha and others, during
life."  THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, P. 232.

"An Arhat sees Nirvana during life.  For him it is no post-mortem state,
but Samadhi, during which he experiences all Nirvanic bliss." VOICE OF
THE SILENCE p. 88.

In light of the above material, Jerry, do you still hold to the view
that was given at the beginning of this email?

Again, Jerry when you write:

>This is not
> the way it is intended in most schools of Buddhism.
> In most schools one becomes a jivamukta while alive
> and then enters nirvana at death.

(1)  One would have to ask what does Jerry mean by "most"?  51% or more
of the schools of Buddhism.

(2)  Is Jerry really correct when contending that most schools believe
"one becomes a jivamukta. . . ."?

(3)  But even if Jerry is totally accurate in his statement, does that
mean that the *majority* view is THE correct one?  Maybe the majority
view is only the "exoteric" view.

(4) And what does Jerry's statement have to do with HPB's "view"?

Jerry, it is these types of questions that must be answered by one
trying to gain a better and deeper understanding of the issues.

So when you ask:

> . . . is she [HPB] saying that nirvana is a
> mental state that we can enter while alive? If so, what is
> the difference between that and samadhi?

I would answer as follows.  Yes, Jerry, HPB is saying that nirvana is a
state that we can enter while alive.
But I would not use the word "mental" to describe the state.  Such an
entrance while alive may be a rare occurrence.  And in light of my own
studies, etc. plus HPB's quote from THE VOICE it would appear that one
could possibly equate "Nirvana" with a certain kind of "Samadhi." (see
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras).

Again, I would caution about generalizing about what "Hinduism" teaches
or "Buddhism" teaches.  And I have seen you say such things and then say
that HPB said the opposite.  And many times you wanted your readers to
conclude that HPB was wrong because her teachings was not accepted by
the majority of Buddhist or Hindu schools.  Is truth determined
necessarily by majority opinion or majority teaching or majority vote?


Daniel


Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> >Jerry, you seem quite opinionated with some of your "Phooey"
> >and "Baloney" comments.  Many of your statements are vague,
> >general, undocumented and many times
> >simplistic if not downright erroneous.
> >
>
> You may be quite right. I cannot argue that in my opinion
> a jivamukta is a living being and that HPB calls it a nirvanee
> and one who "is separated from matter" which seems to
> be baloney. But perhaps the implication of a discarnate
> being is taken out of context? If you are saying that she
> uses the term as a living karmaless being, then she is
> right, but this is not the impression that Dallas gave me,
> and rather than check her for myself, I assumed that
> Dallas was correct.
>
> >Yet the very last sentence that Dallas quoted above from HPB's
> >Thesophical Glossary reads:
> >
> >"Virtually one who has reached Nirvana during life."
> >
>
> You can't have it both ways. Either one is incarnated or
> in nirvana, which as I understand it is a discarnate state
> of very high spirituality or is she saying that nirvana is a
> mental state that we can enter while alive? If so, what is
> the difference between that and samadhi? This is not
> the way it is intended in most schools of Buddhism.
> In most schools one becomes a jivamukta while alive
> and then enters nirvana at death. We may be quibbling
> over semantics here. The point I was trying to make
> is that one can be a living human being and function
> without creating any new karma, which according to
> Dallas's interpretation of karma is impossible.
>
> >I quote but two sources that will show others (*if not you*) that
> >you are overgeneralizing and oversimplifying.
> >
> >George Feuerstein in YOGA:  THE TECHNOLOGY OF ECSTASY (p. 198) writes:
> >
> >"At the peak of this ecstatic unification, the yogin reaches the point
> >of no return.  He becomes liberated.  According to the dualistic model
> >of Classical Yoga, this implies the dropping of the finite body-mind.
> >...Some schools of Vedanta, which hold that the ultimate Reality is
> >nondual, argue that liberation does not have to coincide with the
> >death of the physical body.  This is the ideal of liberation in life
> >(jivan-mukti).  Patanjali, however, does not appear to to have
> >subscribed
> >to it. . . . This is also the ideal of Classical Samkhya. . . ."
> >
>
> I have no problem at all with this quote. How does this quote
> help your position? It seems to be saying exactly what I said.
> The Vedantin teaching is that the body is maintained by
> past karma for awhile but produces no new karma (i.e.,
> the cause-effect chain is broken, which you and Dallas
> say is impossible).
>
> >Bruce M. Sullivan in his HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF HINDUISM writes (p.
> >106):
> >
> >"JIVAN-MUKTI. . . . Most Hindu religious and philosophical traditions
> >accept the possibility of one attaining liberation while living, so
> >that one continues to live thereafter without generating any
> >Karma. . . . [but] the Nyaya philosophical tradition. . . does not admit
> >the possibility of liberation until death."
> >
>
> Your quote here simply demonstrates exactly what I have been
> saying about the various occult schools teaching very different
> things. Some schools say yes, and others no. But none of your
> quotes indicate to me that the jivamukti (a Hindu term) is in nirvana
> (a Buddhist term) which is HPB's line.
>
> >These are two quotes of several that I could give that show that to
> >state that "Hinduism" teaches this that or the other is overgeneralizing
> >and oversimplifying the issue under discussion.
> >
>
> Oh? If this is your problem, then I have to agree. Sorry, but I
> have been saying that various schools teach different things
> for a long time. Theosophists tend to think that HPB's Masters
> were the only such school, or maybe at least the best and
> biggest (?).  Whenever anyone, myself included, says that
> Buddhism says, or that Hinduism says, or that Chrisitanity
> says, it rather goes as understood that we are talking about
> most schools/sects/denominations/etc and that exceptions
> can always be found. Technically I should have said Vedanta
> rather than Hinduism. If this somehow makes you feel better,
> then consider it amended. It changes nothing about what I
> said about karma though, and it is the original point on karma
> that we were discussing--all this quoting is a lot of peripheral
> noise to take everyone's mind off my original point, which so
> far has not been addressed.
>
> >  I wish I had more time to point out your errors
> >by quoting chapter and verse.  Hopefully interested readers will
> >consult other sources (Buddhist and Hindu, for example) before
> >they naively accept many of your characterizations.
> >
>
> God, Dan. I could say exactly the same for you. But the difference
> between us is that I am only trying to show an alternative viewpoint,
> while you are trying to "prove" something that is unprovable. My
> giving you a zillion quotes will change nothing in your mind at all,
> you know it and I know it, and I don't have the time.
>