Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00019)

Feb 3rd 1999

Dear Darren:

In this commentary from the BARDO it is not clear as to who is
looking at what.  At least that is the impression I get.

Is there not a vast distinction between the inquiring
CONSCIOUSNESS who looks at the EMBODIED CONSCIOUSNESS - our
minds, memories and thoughts of today and yesterday - and say
what are their value in terms of permanency ?  In other words in
me (my Mind), I can see that I can look at my memories and think
my thoughts, but I am not bound either by those images of the
past or the actions of the present.  I am detached from both.
They exist but I am not forced into any position by them.  They
are subordinate. I am the permanent "I".

Do we have two CONSCIOUSNESSES or do we have ONE CONSCIOUSNESS
and two planes (at least) of perception?

What is NIRVANA ?  How can it be described, unless some
CONSCIOUSNESS has been there, returned, and then left a
description ?  We must logically assume that the "I" when it
enters that state, it severs its connection with the "embodied
Self," and no longer has a basis for involvement in earth life
activities.  Why should a blank state be considered bliss?  Could
we stand it ?  Are we saying that as MINDS we desire to cut of
FEELING and EMOTION ?  And, can this be truly done ?

I know that in Hindu and Buddhist thinking the ideal of a
non-essing (deliverance from sin, feeling and sorrow) is
considered superior to earthly life as we know it today.  But is
that not a reaction from the power that we all possess, to some
degree, of "putting ourself in the place of another" and enjoying
or suffering along with them - as we picture they must be
enjoying or suffering (if they were using our nature)  ?

Is "freedom from hurt and suffering" the only thing to be
achieved by personal progress ?  If so, then do we know what
causes suffering ?  How do we stop from creating more suffering
for ourselves ?  [ I sound like a disciple repeating the Buddha's
4 Paths ] because, the next is: what active steps should we take
to control our lives and actions so as to make ourselves
harmless - and thus bring on a state of karma-less-ness ? {the
Hindus, Jains and Buddhists enjoy discussing such matters and are
very active (those that are interested) in discussing such
philosophical things.

Of what value to us is a state in which we assume it is blissful
if nothing is done or contemplated or felt or contacted ?

Has anyone acquired a greater quality of awareness, attention,
concentration or meditation by entering (even for an hour) a
condition of sense-deprivation ?

I think there is relevance to DESCARTES' statement.  Are we not
essentially MIND-BEINGS ?  Is the MIND a permanence, a dynamic
investigator, an ever-changing repository of memories ?  What is
it ?
Why are we burdened with it ?  Why do we imagine that
NOTHING-NESS is a solution to the pain and suffering of embodied
life ?  (Which is how NIRVANA is often described.)

Next we could ask are we essentially FEELING-BEINGS ?  do we
enjoy the inter-action and inter-relation of our life ?  Can we
live without feeling, desire, goals, amusement, and, yes, pain ?

I think the real problem is one of selecting our thoughts,
objectives and actions that result from decision making.  Can we
act so as not to hurt ourselves by a future reaction that is
painful ?

Why does a criminal hide his actions and pretend to be virtuous?
Does that not imply he is innately aware that he is doing wrong,
and in order to continue to live in "society" without close
supervision, he has to pretend to be trustworthy ?  And, if he
has that innate awareness and knows the difference between right
and wrong, why persist in doing that which is hurtful to others,
and ultimately to himself?

Sorry,  I have a lot of questions I have asked myself, and am
trying to trace down useful answers.  So far I have found the
propositions of theosophy to be the most valuable.

You may be interested in "No-saying," but I find it more valuable
to ask questions.  Perhaps we can all learn from each other by
going forward, not by applying brakes on our thinking - or am I
wrong in understanding what you are driving at ?

I wonder if we are trying to approach the same thing, but perhaps
from different perspectives ?

Dal

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


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.