Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00154)

May 18th

Dallas offers:

Eugene:

H)PB does not speak of "sets" for the reason that they are
configured IN MANIFESTATION.  That is they have limit and also
limit our mental perceptions, starting from the "here and now" of
our daily waking experience.

She starts with the more metaphysical and therefore more
difficult to conceive of impartite and irresolvable ABSOLUTENESS
which IS yet is without all manifestations.

In using the concept of the ABSOLUTENESS, All that is manifested,
emanated or radiated is resolvable back into that ONE  or rather
all encompassing NOUGHT.  Yet it is not a nought as VOIDNESS but
rather a PLENUM.  It is simply unrestricted by any limits.

What is obvious from the phrasing of the Stanzas of Dzyan is that
there is something there that retains all the imprisons of all
beings which MANIFESTED and which are now at rest and to all
intents and purposes motionless.  Looking at this from this side
with our mental limits is very difficult because we have to
deliberately shed all concepts to ahankara whether this be of the
lower or the higher SELF.

Another "obvious" is that the LAW OD KARMA never ceases and it
operates to bring even a period of absolute rest and apparent
negation to an end, and then the Universe "rolls out again in all
its complexity."

SD I 27 verse 8 also shows a 3rd "PRESENCE"  -- the OPENED EYE OF
THE DANGMA."  This designation is reserved to THOSE so
immeasurably HIGH in terms of evolution that we might say they
are the true PRIMITIVE MEN/MINDS which are because of age and
effort the closest to and yet not absorbed in the ABSOLUTENESS.
They are its first and main servants and therefore the
servants of all manifested life.

We have several potential forces, powers foci within the
ABSOLUTENESS.

I hope that this is of help.

Dal.

D. T. B.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Eugene
Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 8:48 AM
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION

Dear Dallas,

This is good advice. And.  I will happily conform to this good
and essential
standard in communication.  HBP is the guiding light on these
matters.  I am
also an Alice Bailey Student, but HPB is the best source for the
crucial
fundamentals.  Alice Bailey is for some who have thoroughly
understood the
guidelines laid down by HBP, in my opinion.  I have studied the
first four
Stanzas of the Secret Doctrine and the comments in Blav. Lodge
intensely.
It is my life work to deeply understand the fundamentals and the
early
stanzas.  For me everything else in my life depends on this
understanding at
the highest level I can reach.  I will go back and re-study such
materials
again and again and will try to contribute from time to time.
A key idea for me is that the first three sets: The empty set,
the set
containing the empty set, and the set containing the set
containing the
empty set(zero, one, two) are a basic trinity and are very
closely related
to the Cosmic Logoic, Cosmic Monadic, and Cosmic Atmic planes as
well, and
in the same way, as the Logoic, Monadic, and Atmic Planes.  I am
seeing that
a state of consciousness can be considered a set and that the top
state in
any set of seven is empty, simply a sea of fire.  I share this as
it is my
duty to my theosophical siblings.

Love,
Gene


-----Original Message-----
From: dalval <dalval@nwc.net>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION


>OK Gene --
>
>theosophy and its students are a band of thinkers.
>
> However, theosophy has a kind of short-cut system (call it
>terminology or verbiage if you want) which enables ideas to flow
>easily.  I found that the "3 Fundamentals of the SD"  ( Vol. 1,
>pp 14-19) and the definitions in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY as to the
7
>"principles" of Man (psychology) are very helpful.
>
>If you are willing o have another look at those and see if there
>is a way in which your thought and those definitions agree it
>will be a definite easement of understanding between us all --
as
>in all things there are certain "paths" devised to keep our
>thoughts in a channel that eases exchanges without being in
>itself too formal and too over-bearing or in any way restrictive
>of individual thoughts and considerations.
>
>Take BUDDHI  -- (a definite but infinitesimal point of
PRIMORDIAL
>MATTER that is firmly, indissolubly united to SPIRIT in
>manifestation).  Relates to Akasa -- the highest aspect of the
>"astral light" on which all thoughts, feelings and acts are
>ineradicably impressed.  Also the highest aspect of altruism in
>the manifested universe.  It is also universal so that one might
>say that BUDDHI is a quality which is shared equally by all, yet
>is also individual to the Mind in manifestation.
>
>As an example.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>D. T. B.
>
>===========================
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
>[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Eugene
>Carpenter
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:48 AM
>To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
>Subject: Re: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION
>
>Dear Dallas,
>
>Thankyou.  You have written very clearly.  It all jives with my
>understanding.  Our words vary but the thought seems the same.
>It is
>soooooo important to define terms and HPB is the leader in
>defining such
>terms in my opinion.  I am trying to understand her definitions
>and then
>find similar notions in the language and culture of scientists
in
>my field
>particularly those from working family backgrounds and mediocre
>public
>school educations like myself.  So far I like:
>
>1. All possible thought
>2. Latent thought
>3. Actual thought
>
>from the theosophical literature, corresponding to
>
>1. Atma
>2. Buddhi
>3. Higher Manas
>
>I'm considering the possibility that another accurate
>correspondance is
>
>
>1. Altruistic Motive(the unity of all possible thought, the
>Thinker)
>2. Intuitive thought
>3. Science
>
>or even
>
>1. Altruisim(Occultism)(see the stories by O'Henry)
>2. Beauty, the realm of the Pure Mathematician, the Platonic
>realm or state
>of consciousness
>3. Science
>
>
>Thankyou so much for your response.  I am beginning to feel
right
>at home!
>
>Gene
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dalval <dalval@nwc.net>
>To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:09 AM
>Subject: RE: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION
>
>
>>May 15 2000
>>
>>Dear Gene:
>>
>>The statements I make are metaphysical.
>>
>>Once that those are understood the process of "hands-on"
>>formation begins and tools of whatever material are devised for
>>the "plane of manifestation" on which they are needed.
>>
>>It is plain (to me) for instance, that the Mind operates on a
>>plane different from the "hands."  The Mind then guides the
>>(physical) hands through the (physical) brain impulses, and so
>>on.
>>
>>But there is always in "us" That which is the master and
>operator
>>of the Mind.  For the Mind is also a "tool."  It is very
>>powerful, but it is "WE" who use and guide it.  The "WE" is
(for
>>me) the Monad or Atma-Buddhi-Manas in manifestation and
>presently
>>using the personality that I am, including the lower mind which
>>then guides my body in its daily thinking and work.
>>
>>It should be also recognized that our whims, impulses and
>desires
>>are a powerful component of our personality and at times they
>>tend to oppose the clear vision and action of the Higher Mind.
>>We have all witnessed this interior conflict as a matter of
>>practical psychology.  A discussion of their origin and power
is
>>another (separate) chapter in the study of Theosophy.
>>
>>HPB gives us the definitions of ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS in the KEY TO
>>THEOSOPHY.  Her definitions do not entirely suit/agree with
>those
>>that you offer (if I understand them correctly).
>>
>>Atma = Ideal everything.  This is IMMORTAL and ETERNAL.
>>Imperishable.  A "ray" of the Universal One Spirit is said to
be
>>fixed at the core of every Monad.  A "Man/mind" is Monad which
>>has reached the stage of independent thinking.
>>
>>Buddhi = imperishable record of all that has been done in the
>>past.  This is a continuous record in Akasa of thoughts,
>>feelings, and acts of each Monad.  Taken as a whole these
>records
>>form the imprint of THEOSOPHY (as history and doctrine) down
the
>>ages.  It is imperishable and ineradicable.  Like our Karma it
>>forever surrounds us.
>>
>>The MONADS are everywhere in the manifested Universe   (some
>call
>>them the "life-atoms.")  They appear when manifestation dawns
>and
>>are units of ATMA/BUDDHI.  Buddhi being  PRIMORDIAL MATTER
>>(Mulaprakriti).
>>
>>Manas = Mind with all its many aspects.  Primarily there are
>two:
>>
>>1.  Buddhi-Manas or the ideal mind that perceives the truths
and
>>facts that are universal, impersonal and ideal.  The
>applications
>>of the superior mind is, as you say:  "Altruism -- or
>Occultism."
>>
>>2.  Kama-Manas or the personal mind that is associated most
>>closely with our present embodiment in a physical body and
>>nature.  Of this Patanjali says:  "The modifications of the
mind
>>are... Correct cognition, Misconception, Fancy, Sleep, and
>>Memory." [ Pat. I - 6, 7.  p. 4 ]  As I understand it, we are
>>expected to master these and learn how they operate so we can
>>control them.
>>
>>This is what I apply when trying to understand what is written
>>and in answering.
>>
>>I hope that this may be of use.
>>
>>Dallas
>>
>>
>>D. T. B.
>>
>>
>>============================================
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
>>[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Eugene
>>Carpenter
>>Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 1:16 PM
>>To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
>>Subject: Re: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Thanks, but I don't believe that.  Atma-buddhi-Manas is the
>>transpersonal
>>triad
>>
>>1.  The Creative Will of Humanity, the first cause of the
>>Altruistic Mind
>>2.  The Buddhic intuitive Mind
>>3.  The Abstract Mind
>>
>>The deductive or the concrete mind is indeed the tool of the
>>higher states
>>of Atma-Buddhi-Manas and a tool doesn't build a house.  But
>>Atma-Buddhi-Manas ain't gonna build no house without a tool.
>>
>>I've experienced it.  One receives the Creative Will of
>>Humanity(Atma)(all
>>possible thought) through the buddhic intuition(latent thought)
>>and one gets
>>abstract thought(actual thought.  This is then down-loaded into
>>the personal
>>concrete mind and must confront the personal experience and
>>vice-versa.
>>Then the concrete mind experience, common sense, must search
for
>>experience
>>which substantiates the new abstract thoughts(hypotheses) or
>>devise the
>>proper experiments to substantiate the buddhi-manasic notions.
>>The concrete
>>mind is the slayer of the real, but what does that phrase mean?
>>Gee.  HPB
>>wrote that the concrete mind is symbolized by John the Baptist
>in
>>the
>>symbolic language of the New Testament.  Further she wrote that
>>this
>>concrete mind, this personal analytical mind, is the bridge,
the
>>antaskarana, from the transpersonal states of consciousness to
>>the personal
>>states of consciousness.  The concrete mind is not the cause of
>>abstract-intuitive-thought but is the effect of such thought.
>>Science is
>>important.  Science is knowledge of matter.  Wisdom is
knowledge
>>of spirit.
>>To have wise science is the goal is it not?  Decartes said that
>>the way to
>>truth is through intuition AND deduction.  He did not write
that
>>the way to
>>truth is through deduction.  The analysis and synthesis by the
>>concrete mind
>>is the personal basis that substantiates theosophical thought!
>>It might not
>>be the way but is the means to truely and deeply understand.
>>Isn't personal
>>understanding essential?  Isn't personal understanding and
>common
>>sense
>>really the bottom line.  Theosophy lifts one into understanding
>>the obvious.
>>  "Occultism is Altruism pure and simple." HPB. And.  How are
we
>>going to
>>put our lives on the line for the one life of our humanity?
>>
>>Hooray for deduction!
>>
>>Love,
>>Gene
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ASANAT@aol.com <ASANAT@aol.com>
>>To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
>>Cc: ARASantaFE@aol.com <ARASantaFE@aol.com>; Elliot Ryan
>><nppress@vais.net>;
>>csanabri@skadden.com <csanabri@skadden.com>; Armando Verea
>><averea@juno.com>
>>Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:31 AM
>>Subject: Re: Theos-World MONADS IN EVOLUTION
>>
>>
>>>In a message dated 4/27/00 2:15:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes:
>>>
>>><< Hi,
>>>
>>>I've enjoyed reading ya'll stuff on theos-talk, and I'm on the
>>lookout for
>>>anything concerning finding truth through deduction and
>>buddhic-intuition
>>>with deduction beginning and ending with the self-evident
>truth.
>>>
>>>Love,
>>>Eugene  >>
>>>
>>>Dear Eugene,
>>>
>>>If you are looking to "find truth through deduction,"
>especially
>>"beginning
>>>and ending with the self-evident truth," & in the words of the
>>immortal
>>John
>>>Lennon (as informed by Yoko):  "Rots-a-rock!"
>>>
>>>Deduction is a tool of the analytical mind.  The analytical
>mind
>>is
>>wonderful
>>>for doing anything having to do with things mechanical
>(building
>>bridges,
>>>composing computer programs, finding one's way in traffic).
>But
>>it is
>>>ludicrously out of its depth, when it comes to things that
>>matter to humans
>>>(such as ethics, religious experience, aesthetic experience, &
>>such).
>>Since
>>>theosophy is about things that matter to humans, deduction has
>>no ESSENTIAL
>>>place in it.
>>>
>>>Yes, deduction has a place in our understanding of theosophy.
>>The
>>DEDUCTIVE
>>>ARGUMENT used in the previous paragraph is an example of how
we
>>use
>>deduction
>>>all the time, whenever we speak or think.  So whenever we
SPEAK
>>or THINK of
>>>things theosophical, we'll be FORCED to use deduction.  But
>such
>>speaking
>>is
>>>truly THEOSOPHICAL if, and only if, it comes from THEOSOPHICAL
>>STATES OF
>>>AWARENESS.  In such states, the analytical mind (including its
>>deductive
>>>elements) has absolutely NO PLACE.  "The Mind is the Great
>>Slayer of the
>>>Real.  Let the Disciple Slay the Slayer."  Slaying is a strong
>>word.  It
>>>means:  There must be ABSOLUTELY NO ANALYTICAL MIND, in any
>>genuine inquiry
>>>into THAT WHICH IS.
>>>It is from DEDUCTION that any and all SYSTEMS come from.  But
>>systems
>>ALWAYS
>>>imply the preservation and promotion of THE ME.  And so long
as
>>there is
>>>self-centeredness, there cannot be any inquiry worthy of the
>>name into THAT
>>>WHICH IS.
>>>A system always preserves & promotes the me, since a KNOWER is
>>required in
>>>order to have a system of any sort.  Such a knower is, almost
>by
>>definition,
>>>separate from the thing it knows.  So a system IMPLIES that
>>there MUST BE a
>>>fragmentation between an observer, and that which she
observes.
>>But such
>>an
>>>observer is ALWAYS the result of the way she thinks.  That is,
>>the
>>observer,
>>>the analyzer, is always a result of never-questioned
>>expectations, based on
>>>conditioning.
>>>So DEDUCTION, far from getting anyone any closer to
>>understanding anything
>>>about THAT WHICH IS, is an excellent tool for making it
>>IMPOSSIBLE to even
>>>look at THAT WHICH IS, let alone for getting close to it.
>>>A totally different human component must be relied on, in this
>>process of
>>>theosophical investigation.  According to the ancient wisdom,
>>such sources
>>>are to be found in insight-compassion, in whose states of
>>awareness, as
>>such,
>>>there is no analysis -- & so no deductions.
>>>This is intended only as part of an on-going dialogue on "the
>>Great
>>>Conversation."  It is not meant as a "final word" on this
>>subject, by any
>>>means.  What do ya'll think?
>>>With affection,
>>>Aryel
>>>
>>>-- 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>-- 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.
>>
>>
>>-- 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.
>>
>
>
>-- 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.
>
>
>-- 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.
>


-- 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.


-- 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.