Theos-World Some Responses to Peter
Apr 08, 1999 08:26 AM
by Gerald Schueler
>>You are trying to have both sides of the argument here. >>
Sometimes this is what I do, Peter. Sometimes both sides
can be right. Sometimes not.
>> On the one hand, by using what HPB said about Atma, you question my
view that 'Individual Consciousness' is something that can be
'acquired'. >>
Right. Individual consciousness is a given. It is, by definition,
within the divine Monad from the start.
>> On the other hand you are seeking to show me wrong about the
'evolution' ...>>
No, I am not trying to show or prove you wrong. I am merely
trying to suggest that a broader view is possible. There is
no right and wrong here.
>>I think these references to Maya just 'fog' the issues. >>
Of course they do. Maya is nothing but fog anyway.
The neat thing about fog is that we can use our imaginations
to see lots of different things in it. There is nothing wrong
with this, so long as we keep in mind that it is all just fog.
>>Of course everything in the manifested Kosmos is only 'relatively
real'. But then what? If everything is maya, why argue
so fiercely about dissolving personal Karma, or for 'liberation in a
single lifetime', or for 'imagination' as the only way to the spiritual
mountain top.>>
If only relatively real, Peter, then why do you argue so
fiercely that these views are all wrong? The only answer
that I can give you here is that because these are part
of my worldview and I want to see how they stand up to
honest criticism.
>> For in this view there is no individual to be liberated, no personal
karma to be dissolved, no one to do the 'imagining', and imagination
itself and the object of imagination are also just more and more Maya.
>>
Actually, you are quite right here. When one realizes the
truth of your statement above, one will become an Adept.
>> Are we suddenly enlightened for simply stating that all is Maya? No.
Even materialistic science teaches that view in its own way. >>
Some would equate enlightenment with waking up. If so,
then the idea that one is sleeping is a good start, don't
you think?
>>In your "previous post" you were discussing personal beliefs in
relation to the Law of Karma. For I had questioned your view that Karma
depended on personal beliefs for it to act >>
Our personal beliefs are karmic. Our worldview is karmic.
Our personal experiences are karmic. Furthermore, our
human lifewave is karmic, and our Reincarnating Ego
is karmic. Everything in maya is karmic.
>>- the example of 'gravity' if you remember. >>
You can't compare karma to gravity. They aren't
even close.
>> For the record this is what you actually said:
> Most people don't believe in "spiritual Laws" at all. For those
> people, such laws may as well not exist. To say that karma
> is *only* impersonal is plain wrong.>>
Thanks forquoting me. I still stand by every word. The
first part was said by me *before* you posted the HPB
quote that substantiated it.
Karma is both personal and impersonal (collective).
>>As for not understanding what that quote (From p135 of the Key) had to
do with "Individual Consciousness", it stressed *why* individual
consciousness needed to be 'acquired'. Referring to the Monads and the
senseless shells of early races of Humanity, HPB offers a good analogy
....>>
The divine Monad already is self conscious. It is, by definition,
a consciousness-center. It is only its "rays" or expressions
in spacetime that need to develop or evolve self-consciousness.
The whole SD refers only to rays and expressions, not to
the divine Monad. During the Arc of Descent consciousness
is lost. Then during the Arc of Ascent it is regained, and the
pilgrim returns home. The SD is a detailed explanation of
of the Great Breath of Brahaman, which is all maya but
a lot of fun.
>>Yes, it is Manas.>>
I hate wasting my time on this, but maybe I can get a
few quotes together from my Sanskrit dictionary to
show you otherwise.
>> One of the useful things about giving qoutes is that
people like yourself and others on the list can check them at source and
see what is ACTUALLY said by the author devoid
of my interpretions.>>
Yet your interpretations persist nonetheless. Apparently
you still don't understand the business of interpretation
that I have been talking about?
[Peter quotes HPB]
>>>> Neither Atma nor Buddhi are ever reached by Karma, because the
former is the highest aspect of Karma, its working agent of ITSELF in
one aspect, and the other is unconscious on this plane.<<<<
This wonderful quote from HPB says exactly what I have
been saying. Atma and Buddhi are in maya because they
are both located within our 7 plane solar system. I
interpret the above quote to mean that karma only exists
within our 7-plane solar system, which is exactly what I
have said. Thanks Peter for showing everyone where I was
coming from.
[Peter continues quoting HPB]
>> >>This consciousness or mind is,
3. Manas, the derivation or product in a reflected form of Ahamkara,
"the conception of I," ...>>>>
Again Peter, this doesn't help you much. She does NOT
say that consciousness is manas, but rather "this
consciousness or mind" which is, again, exatly what I
have been saying. Manas is the human mind, and
human consciousness exists or functions only when
consciousness is focused on manas.
God help us all if consciousness is restricted to the
human condition.
[more HPB from Peter]
>>>>It is this Ego which -- having originally incarnated in the
senseless human form animated by, but unconscious (since it had no
consciousness) of, the presence in itself of the dual monad -- made of
that human-like form a real man.>>
Humanity was only "a real man" when consciousness
was able to focus itself at the manasic level. This is
still true--mental health requires just such a focus.
What, after all, is mania or dimensia but the loss of this
focus?
[and finally]
>>>> It is that Ego, that "Causal Body," which overshadows every
personality Karma forces it to incarnate into; and this Ego which is
held responsible for all the sins committed through, and in, every new
body or personality -- the evanescent masks which hide the true
Individual through the long series of rebirths. "
(Key to Theosophy, p135-136)>>>>
Here HPB equates the Reincarnating Ego with the Causal
Body. I have always done this too, but I had arguments
with other Theosophists who insisted the Causal Body was
an invention of CWL. Thanks for the quotes Peter.
>>As you will see from the above, not only is that consciousness MANAS,
but it can be "inseparably united" to Atma-Buddhi. >>
Actually, Peter, I don't see that at all. Manas is a Sanskrit
word that means mind. Period. Mind is not consciousness
itself. For example, when I separate consciousness from my
human mind I can experience the difference.
[Peter quotes Jerry (me)]
>> Manas is beneath the duad and thus is forever unaware of it.>>
Peter, although you think me wrong here, I think that I am
quite right. Manas in stuck on the mental plane, and the
buddhi is stuck on the causal plane, and the atma is stuck
on the spiritual plane just like our body is stuck (i.e., confined)
on the physical plane. Only consciousness can go through
the planes. Only by impressing the brain with its experiences,
can we remember those experiences later.
If nothing else, I hope I have shown how Original Source
Material can be interpeted in different ways.
***********************
Peter is not "wrong" to associated manas with
consciousness. Probably 99.9% of people do.
But this idea doesn't hold up very well after we
start yogic training, astral traveling, or doing OBEs
and the like. The idea that consciousness has to
be separate from the mind, and that human
consciousness is only one form of consciousness,
becomes a necessity in order to explain those
experiences.
Jerry S.
-- 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.
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
