Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00068)

Dear Dallas;

You wrote:
>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.
**************************************************

This implies that we each have an individual continuum of existence albeit
with different personalities each incarnation. What I get from ISIS but not
necessarily from other HPB works is that the MONAD or divine unit has the
only continued existence and that it emanates in forms. Because the ONE
experiences everything, anything we as individuals do to ther indivuals
must be experienced by the one - hence KARMA. 

*************************************************

>
>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.
****************************************

Is Wisdom memory though? (see p591 ISIS UNVEILED Book II) Memory has been
called Phantasy - maybe to delineate it from Akasic record. Pastlife recall
then could be said to have been access to akasic record rather than actual
'memory'.

********************************
>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.
********************************

But would you say we start with the same premises or possibly the idea of a
set conclusion that we hope our reasoning will lead to? 

********************************
>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.
********************************

Perhaps here is where we break down because of the definitions. I agree
completely with what you say - my problem I think has been identifying the
'timeless state' - the theoretical primal condition of the absolute in any
any unchanged, manifested, emanation form - without disturbance - with
NIRVANA. But as you say, any condition one can return to from must have not
been that zero state. Thus the Nirvana of mystics is more like Samadhi ?? 
*******************************

>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).
***************************************
Akasa must then be the sum of all things for all time or one and the same
with Maya. Manifesting through a holographic nature. This contiuum or
pleroma has consciousness as one its aspects...consciousness then divided
by arbitrary boundaries where in fact there are none...and consciousness
itself must then be Maya. Who then is the dreamer?
****************************************
 
>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.
***************************************

Because of these arbitrary boundary's we call sensory bodies?? Selfishness
then is itself an illusion if there is no real individual self only the
UNIVERSAL SOUL which I may again be erroneously equating with the MONAD.

****************************************
>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 ?
****************************************

This is a question that plays on  my mind a lot. Is there NECESSITY? Is
one's individual Dharma reflective of the dharma of the MONAD - as above
and so below? If it is supposedly better not to exist then why leave that
primal state? Was it out of NECESSITY or DESIRE? (this is where I wish I
knew more NORSE mythology - especially the 3 fates Clothos? etc)

Is the Dharma to be a cog in a great machine or is it to be an individual?

as Cake say:

Sheep go to heaven - Goats go to hell.

******************************************

>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.
**********************************************

I get the impression of the idea of Nirvana that most people adhere to is a
state where it would be impossible to have a 'choice' in either staying or
leaving. From what I understand of most Tibetan Lamas they renounce Nirvana
in advance and deliberately accumulate karma to avoid it....this would
indicate that if they were to achieve liberation upon death they would have
no way to cause incarnation again...as karma would be zero in theory.
Having said that though this would have also been the starting point or
primordial condition of all manifest beings and yet here we are....
**********************************************
>To me the concept of compassion and the need for cooperation and
>co-existence would overwhelm any desire for a personal "rest" and
>"bliss."
***********************************************

Unless one equates unity consciousness as a merging with absolute, and thus
the personal or relative would indeed be the universal, and any rest or
bliss would also be universal. I'm not sure if we can use logic or
reasoning to talk about these things though.
************************************************
>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.
*************************************************
AH - the mystic vision! We started with the wrong premise....we looked
outward...and as above so below...the absolute itself looked outside for
the the truth. This WILL or DESIRE is the cause of all things in their
manifested nature...But it is what the mayans call the Dreamspell. We are
so locked up in examining it we have gotten continually further from the
truth. But when will a personal salvation equate with universal salvation -
and is there any NECESSITY involved in either?
*************************************************

>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 ?
>
>Darren:These are human concerns.  

	DALLAS  This implies mental action.
>
**************************************************

We assume as HUMANS that we are as Beck would say 'where it's at'. The
focus of attention is the focus of the universal omnipresent attention -
the higher self or Aged of the Ages. So GOD loves to dream.
***************************************************
  
>>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. ]
*********************************************************
This is another of my stumbling blocks - the Nirmanakaya - A nebulous
concept at best. Who is an example of a Nirmanakaya? Or is this something
we have to take on faith?
*********************************************************
>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 ?
**********************************************
Sorry to Harp back to Bulwer-Lytton's 'A Strange Story', but don't we
encounter fear when we push aside any type of experience becuase of how we
see the results or effects? I'm not disagreeing with any statement you've
made re: The Dark Side - I'm sort of taking Jung's view of making contact
with the animus.

*********************************************>
>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.
*******************************
Obviously as a beginner I have not been able to read everything HPB wrote -
I keep finding myself investigating side track issues constantly - But I
have read the Key, ISIS and SD and had not encountered the equation of
devachan and bardo states. Thankyou to Jerry ( I think :)) for pointing out
the reconciliation in a G De Purucker book....This may be what I need to
'tidy' up my mental picture.

*******************************
>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.
*******
see note below
*******>
>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.
**************************************

Actually No I agree with what you're saying but it's not what HPB did say -
which she said very well - but with what she didn't say. And I think that
she didn't mention some things because a) They were not necessary at that
time b) The would have turned church led public opinion against her even
more and c) Even she herself said that she was only painting the picture as
best as she could at that time. I'm sure if she had managed another 15-20
years we would have volumes more work and a lot of work would have been
re-edited..possibly extensively. But nothing to change the underlying
message of course.

**************************************
>>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.
**************************
Wow I just had an epiphany reading that statement. It implies two things -
one their is a quest - and two possibly there is a goal. Is the goal
attainable or does it matter? Would you say that Theosophy teaches an
endless evolution in periodic manifestation but with succeeding
improvements (paranirvana, paraparanirvana etc) as opposed to the Buddhist
teaching that there is an endless cycle (the wheel of life) but of which
there is a solution to - cessation of existence?

This dialogue has helped my understanding of the differences between
Buddhism and Theosophy no end. Thankyou Dallas.
******************************

Namaste,

Darren

*************************
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.