Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00041)

Dear Dallas:

>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.

*** I think that is the point though. Who really is looking at what?

>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".

So you are saying that the centre of each of us, the thought generator,
communicator, speech-maker, is identical in all ?

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

It would seem that the universal consciousness has two planes - one of them
by defintion INSANE - ie our material existence - the illusion that the
many are in fact real.


>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 ?

You ask many questions here - i presume most rhetorically to force me down
a line of reasoning - but lets just hold up a moment and try to deal with
each question.

What is Nirvana? A Seattle Grunge Band fronted by murdered singer kUrt
Cobain? No seriously - I would say that is is the state of supreme freedom
from suffering that is the goal of all Buddhist practice. It is attainable
by all beings because it is the final truth of their condition. But here
to, the defintion depends on the school. My personal opinion is that it
must be a non-dual state.

Why should a blank state be considered bliss? and associated questions -
I sort of look at it as the withdrawel of the triangle back into the point.
Thus from the trinity of object, subject and process of observation - the
object and subject become one without process - this 'zero-point'
consciousness, availbale to us between every moment - is identical with the
primordial unmanifested state. But I don't want to comment upon it's state
in anything like human terms such as 'bliss'.

Are we saying that as MINDS we desire to cut off FEELING and EMOTION?

THis is the essence of Maya. The desire of the unity for relation begats
emantion and descent. So if we wish to end suffering we must end desire and
it's associates FEELING and EMOTION. You can't have one without the other.
Is this not the Buddha's path - and in fact the opposite of theosophy which
desires incarnation?

>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)  ?

You are saying that we can have our cake and eat it too. I think Karma is
more like a Zero-point equalizer. From nothing all came, and from nothing
it shall return. As long as the grand equation balances. While we desire we
force the equation out of equilibrium - karma only tries to return it
balance, on all planes.

>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.

Is there existence in karmalessness though? If all is cyclical then we must
assume that the seed for existence lies within the state - becuase we are
here now. If we really are here.

>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 ?

These are human concerns.

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

Have you read John C Lily's autobiography?

>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.)

adhyatmavidya has much to say on the illusive nature of mind, too much for
me to go into here - but suffice to say that the concept of a MIND only
exists in a MIND, if you get my drift.

And we imagine that NOTHINGNESS is a solution precisely because it is that
- a solution. It doesn't mean it's the only solution, but it still is a
solution to all suffering caused by RELATIONSHIP. Relationship implies
duality - the concept of the other.

>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 ?

This is the Ego talking - it loves the security of this existence - it even
puts up with the pain because it is more afriad of what the unity
consciousness existence implies.

>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 ?

I would say no.

>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?

Fear. Fear is the path to the Darkside.

>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.

As do I. But I'm having trouble reconciling theosophy if it doesn't accept
the Tibetan 'between' states model - as I have personally experienced this
model. I'm beginning to think that theosophy as a concept is fine, but that
Theosophy as espoused by the TS is a pointer to find for ourselves what the
victorian mind could not bring to light.

>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'm sort of following the Socratic 'questioning model'. Often I will say
stuff that I may not necessarily believe in, just to provoke lively debate
and discussion.

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

More than likely. I'm trying to find a theory that matches my experience.

I hope this gives you some more food for thought - and as I've said before
- my belief system is very fluid - so feel free to throw pebbles in the pond.


Regards

darren porter

*************************
Are you on my mailing list? 
If you would like to join Nos's Worldwide Soapbox please send email to my
address with subject line - "Yes I am Ready Oh Great One" or something
similar.

If you would like to cancel subscription then please send an email
detainling for me in 300 words what good reasons you have to cancel. Oh and
put in the Header -

"I can't handle the truth"
**************************






-- 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.