Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00049)

Feb 5th   1999

Dear friend:

Dallas offers some comments below:

----------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
Sent:	Thursday, February 04, 1999 7:57 PM
Subject:	RE: A few questions on a touchy subject...What is the
SOUL  =  the MIND



Dear Dallas:


You wrote:

>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 ?


DALLAS:  The Egoic Consciousness IS ONE AND UNCHANGED THROUGH
EACH STATE THAT WE PASS. It serves to maintain the string of
memory - or we would not be aware in retrospect of those states.

In regard to the continued CONSCIOUSNESS of the Ego from life to
life, since the brain is reconstructed afresh each incarnation
from the scattered "life-atoms"  (Skandhas) of earlier lives
which are re-attracted to it as a Center, it forms the basis for
our sense of "I-ness" and our character, capacities and talents
 or lack of these if they have not been developed earlier).  This
is what I get out of the Theosophical teachings.


Dallas asked:
>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 definition INSANE - i.e. our material existence - the illusion
that the
many are in fact real.


DALLAS    I would not call it "insane" since the faculty of
memory and of Egoity are at the base of our consciousness.
Confused perhaps, at times, but usually prepared to consider new
ideas, and sustain its own interest in verifying them

Theosophically, as I see it:

Perception is the faculty of the Spirit - Atma

Wisdom as the memory of the effects of past choices (and their
results) is the faculty of Buddhi - the Spiritual Mind

Reasoning, ratiocination, logic, inquiring, planning are
faculties of the Mind/soul (Manas).

Desire, emotion, want, egoism and selfishness (or KAMA), (to me)
identify the Mind enveloped in the passional nature (Kama-Manas).
This is the Lower, the embodied mind presently as we are AWAKE,
it is resident and dominant in our waking minds just now.

When the waking mind is able to perceive "needs" as different
from, and often opposed to "wants" then the possibility of
perceiving the Kamic-principle ("Desires & Passions") as a
principle separate from the mind.

Thus we have:

1. Spirit - perception  (it is unitized in us, but is also not
separate from the
			ONE SPIRIT - which is EVERYTHING at its ROOT.  When this
manifests as 			a unit, a form is needed, and Wisdom (Buddhi) is
that first "form."
2. Wisdom - memory of all experiences  (universal vision and
memory of past events)
3. Mind - memory, imagination, anticipation, this is the area of
action and 			creativity.  It can foresee potential results.
4. Desire and Passion - a faculty of selfishness and the desire
to acquire and to 		own.  It is incapable when dissociated from
the Mind of foresight.



Dallas asked:
>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 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 definition depends on the school. My personal opinion is
that it
must be a non-dual state.


DALLAS:  The series of question is only to open the mind to other
possibilities as one develops the next.  No compulsion, only
sincere wonder on my part - following how I develop a line of
questions - for you to compare with your own line.

Why would we equate NIRVANA with bliss-and absence of "pain ?"
If it is non-dual (and I would agree to this, on a very long time
consideration, as to the time that can be spent in that state, it
is still limited in terms of ultimate time.  I say this because
within the ALL or the ONE, it is a limitation.  It is not THE
ALL.



Why should a blank state be considered bliss? and associated
questions -
I sort of look at it as the withdrawal 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, available 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'.


DALLAS	To me it would seem so, since dissociating ourselves as
"Perceivers" from any kind of "perception," and "pain" is such,
the state achieved would not be an ultimate, or TRUE
"zero-point."

To me the "primordial unmanifested state" is present as the base
for the Atmic Perception since it is the only thing that is
completely in contrast with temporary forms, states - all such
being aspects of MAYA-illusion.  Only the UNCHANGED PERCEIVES
CHANGE.  Hence I said that CONSCIOUSNESS does not vary according
to the states we experience, but records what happens there,
using BUDDHI as the base for such recording in its AKASIC sense
(or aspect).



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

DALLAS	Not to "cut off" but to recognize that thinking is
different from "feeling" or "passion" or "desire".



This is the essence of Maya. The desire of the unity for relation
begets
emanation 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?


DALLAS	Not to "end it" but, to understand it, and be able to
prevent it as influence, from taking over the mind.  Holding the
Mind and its perception power (derived from the One Spirit) from
being overwhelmed in a sense of selfish possessiveness or selfish
rejection of the pain of loss or the incapacity to change outer
circumstances for one's self or for others.


Dallas asked:
>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.


DALLAS	In a way I think you are right.  Since we are involved in
manifestation, the karma of our past, and the circumstances of
our present, and we face the consequences of our present choices,
we ought to ask ourselves "Why are we here ?"  Is there some duty
(dharma) which we ought to be learning how to perform ?

Becoming universalized and personally detached from our emotional
bondage is probably the clearest method we can first adopt.  But
on second thought, even that is selfish, because while it might
liberate us from "pain and suffering" by achieving a personal and
selfish NIRVANA - the so-anticipated bliss of non-involvement -
it does not take into account our duties and responsibilities due
to our family, friends, and our whole environment.  And that is
still rather difficult to define.  It spreads out around us and
to achieve true liberation from suffering, those beings, friends,
family ought to be liberated also.  So we are in a way back to
square one, and if we have compassion we may decide to renounce a
personal Nirvana, and remain to assist and "show the way" to
others who seek it.

To me the concept of compassion and the need for cooperation and
co-existence would overwhelm any desire for a personal "rest" and
"bliss."


Dallas asked:
>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 -
because we are
here now. If we really are here.


DALLAS	That is exactly my own thought.  There has to be an answer
to this which is reliable.  In answering this we firs have to
determine who and what we are.  Our took is the mind.  It is
driven by the "desire to known the truth." And finally our "will"
drives the process of learning and focuses our attention, so we
can concentrate and mediate on all relevant aspects of this
search.


Dallas asked:
>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.  	DALLAS  This implies mental action.


Dallas asked:
>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?	DALLAS  Not yet.


Dallas said:
>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.


DALLAS	ADI  primal or first
		ATMA	the ONE SPIRIT
		VIDYA  true knowledge or Wisdom

The meaning is contained in the compound word and is understood,
as above.  Yes Mind is developed so that the Atma may enter into
contact with the rising evolution of individuality as form
(matter) becomes more sensitive and able to receive a reflection
of the MANAS-HIGHER-MIND.

The present mind we use as controller of the brain, while we are
conscious in the waking state,  (I think all these specifications
are necessary) is only a reflection of the true the superior the
Spiritual Mind.  The Spiritual Mind (Higher Manas) is always free
and detached from the lower, embodied Mind (Kama-Manas).

Theosophy looks on Atma - Buddhi - Manas as being the immortal
EGO, the THREE-IN-ONE or That which illuminates the Lower Mind,
resident in our personality when it is awake.



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.

DALLAS	Agreed.  But that does not do away with dharma - or
continued responsibility, as I try to say above.


Dallas said:
>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 afraid of what the unity
consciousness existence implies.

DALLAS	I quite agree.  But it is "afraid" of the implications of
"unity" with the One Consciousness, because, being inexperienced,
it has not understood the value of the Laws of nature and their
universality.  Once that it grasps that aspect of the situation,
it becomes reconciled to its being improved through
universalization and adjustment to an un-selfish future.  In
other words the isolation and selfishness of KAMA is transmuted
into KAMADEVA - the "all-embracing" desire (such as the Buddha or
the Jain Tirthankaras showed) for the benefit of all beings.  And
for this reason such beings who arise from the merely human-mind
condition become the NIRMANAKAYAS - those who remain with the
world and humanity in order to assist all to improve by
self-effort.  [ If you have a copy of HPB's THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY
see "Kamadeva" p. 170. ]


Dallas said:
>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.	DALLAS  If we understand ourselves well, we ought
to be able.


Dallas asked:
>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 Dark-side.

DALLAS	I agree but to overcome fear need knowledge and that
requires education and self-training in universal concepts of law
in living.  Is not the "Dark-side" selfishness and isolation ?
"Me" against the rest of the world and everybody in it ?
Of what value is that in the long run?  Does it eliminate pain
and sorrow or increase it ?


Dallas:
>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 T S is a pointer to find for
ourselves what the
Victorian mind could not bring to light.


DALLAS	Theosophy as espoused by the T S is nebulous.  Theosophy
as taught by HPB is definite (see KEY TO THEOSOPHY for instance)
HPB teaches of Devachan and the "in-between lives" states and
explains their reason for so being there.  The teachings are
orderly and well reasoned.  I am not sure that the "T S" as a
group is fully aware of those, as my contact through this
chat-group shows they as a generality are unfamiliar with that
which HPB taught.

Now, to characterize HPB's teaching as "Victorian" is belittling
it, perhaps unintentionally, and without understanding what she
tried to convey.  Truth is not dated by Victoria, Elizabeth II,
or any era.  It is timeless.

HPB's language is very clear to me, and it is only in the last
few years that I hear the belittling phrase launched at her work
as "Victorian."

Well suppose that it is "Victorian" - Does that make it less true
?  Do we respect Shakespeare, or Tennyson, or Shopenhauer,
Goethe, Descartes, Paracelsus, Jesus, Buddha, Byron, Emerson,
Thoreau, Bronson Alcott or the Brownings or Coleridge, Addison,
Ruskin, Lincoln, etc., the less because of their era and age?

Or is the implication that since she taught (and all that we know
today of the universal doctrines and reasoning of Theosophy is
based on that), the English language has changed so much (in 110
years) that we do not understand her any more ?  I sense that a
subtle barrier has been erected to distract students from going
to her and seeing what she actually said.  Now I wonder why that
should be so ?  Is it because Science has advanced and many of
the prophecies and hints she dropped have been fulfilled since
she wrote them?  Or is it that her philosophy has been so far
unassailed in any serous manner?  I really wonder why and where
this demeaning arose, and especially who have not studied her
works.  Very curious.  I've worked at and used them for over 50
years and find them refreshingly interesting as I survey them
when confronted with fresh questions.


Dallas wrote:
>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.

DALLAS	Quite so.  And so we continue this quest.


Dallas wrote:
>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.


DALLAS	I don't think you are unique in this, as all true students
maintain the kind of attitude you express so well.

Thanks and best wishes,		Dallas   Feb 5th 1999




-- 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.