RE: Response to Dallas
Jan 25, 2001 05:40 PM
January 25, 2002
Some notes below:
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:27 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Response to Dallas
>>DTB IN FOHAT (and his "sons") AND LINKED WITH
INDIVIDUAL KARMA MAY BE THE "CAUSAL" ASPECT. Every motion
has a cause which is ultimately made sensible (visible, tangible
Who are these "sons of Fohat?" Isn't Fohat the central
link between subject and object? Between purusha and
prakriti? Aren't his "sons" the links between our
"self" and our "world?" We relate to an external
world around us through our our fohatic link, a "son"
of cosmic Fohat. In a real sense, fohat is the link
between the poles of any duality.
DTB A portion of the TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE are
reprinted from LUCIFER in CWB Vol. 10, p 380, H.P.B. describes
Fohat and his "Sons" (ULT TRANSACTIONS , p. 121)
Apparently when anything is translated from thought and will into
an occult electrical event -- a "son of Fohat appears."
<< If the Universe is an expression of CAUSE, then so
are alt he many motions.>>
Is it? In a sense, perhaps, but such an idea begs
the question of what this "cause" may be. Buddhists,
for example, would not subscribe to the above statement.
Blavatsky's "causeless cause" is an attempt to
describe the indescribable and thus is misleading.
DTB But of course it does as it is the puzzle of Adepts --
resolvable only into the concept of the eternal and ever
unknowable CAUSELESS CAUSE. I would say that the presence of LAW
everywhere (KARMA) is evidence of its primacy.
<< Motion takes place in abstract space - in the sense
that space is a PRESENCE even if non-tangible. The continuous
the Universe or outbreathing,
seems to produce Manvantara, abs this is to be followed
by an inbreathing which brings on a Pralaya.<<
Does Hubble's law negate Blavatsky's inbreath? It
clearly conflicts with it in the sense that after
the first 3 1/2 Rounds things should be coming
back together rather than expanding. I wonder what
everyone's take is on this one?
DTB from my reading of the S.D., the Pralaya or "In-breathing"
begins only after the 7th Round is completed. What occurs during
the middle of the 4th Round is that incoming Monads to the human
kingdom come to a stop and the program of evolution changes from
involution into matter to evolution out of matter -- presumably
into a more spiritual condition.
>> On the quantum level this "bubbling" may be indicative
of intelligence at that level, if it be admitted that
attraction and repulsion are the inherent
"tools" of all MONADS.>>
I suspect that this bubbling is simply an expression
of the fact that there is no such things as empty
space. Even Buddha's emptiness is only empty of
inherent existence, but not of conventional existence.
Every point in Space has the potential for some
kind of physical expression. In what way are attraction
and expression tools? In what ways so the monads
<<DTB RELATIVE TO WHAT? SOURCE or EFFECT?
A "FORM OF ENERGY" IMPLIES A "SOURCE" THAT SETS LIMITS TO THAT
Is not what Blavatsky calls "spirit" just such a source?
DTB I would say the Monad implies limitations and
individualization -- the "force" is that of JIVA or the
LIFE-ENERGY of the Universe -- which in the S.D. is also called
>>Everything in the 7-fold Universe is ultimately referable
to Spirit = call it either the subjective CAUSE or the subjective
Logic demands one or the other.>>
A recent article in Fohat suggests that everything is
referable to matter. Maybe it doesn't matter since they
are 'two sides of a coin?' Do you see spirit as within
our 7-fold universe or outside it?
DTB I saw that but then Matter never manifests without SPIRIT --
so the proposition does not ring correct to me. The third
factors, which I think are always implicit as basic factors are
the ABSOLUTENESS, KARMA and MIND.
<< DTB HOW TO DEFINE THE "we" THAT PROVIDES THE
"SUBJECTIVE SENSE OF "SELF?" IN A WAY everything IS
SUBJECTIVE as we translate all sense impressions into
internal mental records or constructs. NOT-SELF- implies
to me OTHER THEN MY-SELF. But not necessarily disconnected
from me. >>
Is our physical body our self? Is the body subjective
or objective? How about our mind?
DTB 'Subjective" and "objective" have always troubled me as the
OBJECTIVE is always a memory impacted in the ETERNAL SUBJECTIVE
as a MEMORY -- It was SO AND SO. If you think of the flash of
time it takes between SEEING something and then realizing it is
there, living, moving, -- then that minute time-passage includes
a change from what it was to what it is NOW. There is always a
lag and what we call objective is not longer SO, but only an
APPROXIMATION. Illusion again.
<< How then can the "NOT-SELF" be "Prakriti?" The
interaction and sharing of monads and skandhas implies
no discontinuity, but a cooperative sharing of basic and
materials doe it not? >>
The whole notion of a not-self implies that we have
a basic sense of self. What is this self that seems
so real? It causes us to think that 'I think therefore
I am' but where is it? When I look, I cannot find it.
When we realize that there is no "self," where does
the not-self hide?
In the Hindu texts, purusha is meant to imply our
subjective sense of a self, and prakriti is meant
to imply everything else. Modern translations have
prakriti as "matter" but physical matter per se only
exists as such on the physical plane while purusha
and prakriti do their thing on the highest, not the
DTB If PURUSHA (Soul) is the antithesis of PRAKRITI (Matter in
all its several degrees, planes, appearances, and qualities) then
we have STABILITY surrounded by the whirl of phenomena.
But if the phenomena we sense is also made up of MONADS
Purusha/Prakriti UNITS ) then their reality and the laws of
interaction have to be taken into account.
<<DTB THE REVERSE WOULD BE EQUALLY TRUE, AS OBJECTIVITY
AND SUBJECTIVITY to me, IMPLY STATES OF MIND. YET THE
"I" IS ALWAYS SEPARATE AND SUPERIOR TO THE "MIND" WHICH
IS tool THAT IT DIRECTS.>>
Ah, you have found a self that is above the mind? Have
you looked to see if this self is just another tool of
a yet higher self? In Theosophical terminology, the
arma is above the manas, but what is above the atma?
DTB The many possible LAYERS of SELF do not trouble me, since in
my conception the HIGHEST is still "ME" or "I". The rest are
layers of beings each in its own place not as "slaves" but as
free-willed entities who have volunteered to assist me.
Similarly I can visualize myself as participating in some equally
metaphysical "mountain" in which I have a place and a
responsibility. If I demanded supremacy, then indeed there would
be a violation of the law of cooperation. If I volunteer, then I
seek to contribute the best I can to the "construct."
<< DTB EXACTLY -- AS OUR ABILITY TO DEFINE NIRVANA,
ETC., uses words which may not resonate exactly in the
mind of another. On the other hand, I try to understand
these concepts in terms of the universal qualities and principles
Theosophy outlines (I mean H.P.B.'s)
not de Puruker or others, as I have not been able to
grasp their reasonings.>>
As far as I know, Purucker was largely an apologist for
Blavatsky, and most of his writings are simply putting
her words into an easier-to-understand format. I rather
like him. I am sceptical about such things as "universal
qualities and principles" although I would agree that
there are lots of relative ones.
DTB I am afraid that anyone who offers to interpret another is
doing them an injustice unless they have the same or greater
abilities and it is their duty to make such alterations. After
reading some of GdeP's writings I would not trust him to be
entirely correct. So when I can go direct to the source of
Theosophy why would I take a filtered version? How can I trust
You can't have "relativity" unless you have something far more
solid and valid to compare those with.
<< DTB I know the definition. "I", "we", the SELF do
not have PHYSICAL EXISTENCE, YET THEY RULE THE physical and other
selves we use all the time.<<
In what way do they rule? When we are hungry, our
thinking becomes muddled, and so the body can affect
the mind. When we die, our "aroma" affects the
Reincarnating Ego. Where is any "I" in all of this?
DTB I would say that the superior or the spiritual "I" is
constant and survives the wreck of a personality that dies. --
the "aroma" culled from our lives is what is passed on, and each
life after the adjusting of incoming Karma and surpassing its
clog, the true "I" has a chance to manifest in various ways.
It is for the lower "I" to recognize and make itself congruent
with it. But this is a muddled place to live in when concepts
are not clear cut -- yet each of us has to do the adjusting and
the "clean up" or there is no real progress. As I see it.
<< DTB THAT TRANSCENDENCE I would say is a state of mind
where the FEELING of "Bliss," or "Not-Bliss" is unimportant.
Indifference to those "pairs of opposites" would indicate
to me a universality, impartiality, and respect for all
beings that are struggling to grasp the meaning of this
and transcend the mayavic bonds of Samsara -- or the sea
There is a big difference between trancendence
and indifference. Manas or mind is on the 3rd plane,
the mental plane. I was talking about the three
higher planes of our system which are beyond the
mind. We can call samadhi a "state of mind" perhaps,
but it is really a trancendence of mind altogther.
I am not sure what "respect for all beings" has to
do with bliss??? Can't we experience the ecstasy of
samadhi and still respect living beings?
DTB If we did not have the ONCE CONSCIOUSNESS that links us at
all times, and under all conditions, with the SOURCE -- the
ABSOLUTENESS -- we would not be able to answer your question, I
think. As to SAMADHI (and TURYA), I would say that these are
states of meditative consciousness into which the Lower Mind
enters with greater ease as it purifies itself by the effort of
making the virtues present in all it does.
>>To me the concept of continuous service to others is
far ore important than how I may "feel, or desire" about things.
This is a very nobel attitude. I wish more folks
felt this way.
>>If the THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES are only ILLUSIONS and
temporary, then the object of our service is for the
MONADIC INTELLIGENCES that have so far limited themselves
by their making of illusions, their realities.<<
OK, so how do I set about helping these "monadic
intelligences?" Where are they? I have looked, and
they are us!!
DTB As I see it, we are surrounded by those monadic
intelligences and they constitute every plane, vehicle and sheath
of our personalities. There is a bond there. Karma links us and
them. The only help we can render them is to not distort or
impede their evolution, no matter at what level they may be.
<< Only the MIND WIELDED BY THE SELF IS ABLE TO MAINTAIN
AN EQUIPOISE THAT DISPELS THE MISTS OF ALMOST CONTINUAL
ILLUSION (I would say)
Agreed, but keep in mind that even the wielding Self
has mists that need dispelling.
DTB If the mists are visible to the eyesight of the aspirant, he
has already developed the piercing eye of the Spiritual Mind
(Buddhi-Manas) and with this he understands and then dispels the
mists of un-reason which are approaching him -- kind of mystical,
yet, I think it is also true. To recognize is to beware and to
know is to avoid or transform.
<<DTB Mahayanists do not have beliefs, they have
experience and offer that for consideration.>>
Oh! I didn't know that. I have presumed that such
experience was found only at the highest levels
of the Mahayana. And where do the Vajrayana folks
DTB True VAJRA (energy, Force, Motive) YANA (Path, method,
discipline) are in no lower position than anyone else. They are
MONADS in evolution who have chosen to learn and to act on their
learning. They like all of us are students of the Universal
theosophy -- or evolutionists who learn to understand the goal
and processes of evolution and seek to perform them with ability
and wisdom -- and above all unselfishness.
>>They base their concepts / explanations on the reality
of the UNIVERSAL SELF, and that in turn is an emanation
of the ABSOLUTE.>>
Correct me if I am wrong, but so far as I know the
Mahayanists and Vajrayanists do not accept the
notion of either SELF or ABSOLUTE. I haven't found
this idea in any of their teachings.
DTB They recognize the concepts but use other words. Look
carefully at the VOICE OF THE SILENCE -- a Mahayana text and you
will see what I mean. The expressed morals are based on
<< "WE" are only a "ray" of the ONE SELF ABSOLUTE.>>
This is Theosophy, not Buddhism. And even in Theosophy
this ray is a compound and so lacks inherent existence.
Blavatsky gives us Creators as the cause of the
manifested worlds (Mulaprakriti, Lord Svabhavat, Manu,
Builders, Brahman, etc etc) but Buddhism says that
the cause is our own ignorance. I see these views
as two ways of looking at the same thing.
DTB I think you are right and it is the labeling that confuses.
Also the views we get of Buddhist sects and practices are highly
limited by the knowledge of the translators. It is so in every
<<To regain the perfection we surrendered (lost) we have
to struggle up out of those limits and in doing so, serve
as living examples to the rest who are around or influenced
by us. -- that is how I see it. >>
Who lost or surrendered anything? Our divine monad
is still a divine monad. It remains perfect and complete
even as we speak. I do not see evolution as "gaining"
anything, but rather a long process of removing ignorance.
DTB True, but the practice of the virtues demands that no one
having attained eminence in personal practice, withhold that
wisdom from others, or fail to practice in a daily and hourly
fashion. Hence generosity and service demand cooperation and
assistance at all times.
<< DTB LOGICALLY, TO ME, "Charity or Bodh-chitta, is
precisely the service I described above.>>
No. Service is a action, while bodhicitti is an
attitude. Many nice altruistic people do so out of
guilt for past wrongs. Or do so in expectation of
some reward. Bodicitta should be our
motive for our actions, and then "service" will
not be a service at all but simply what we do
because of who we are.
DTB How can an "attitude" not be "action" -- The regulation of
thought and desire is action on those planes and may be far more
potent than physical acts. Guilt, if it does not result in
restitution is a useless dwelling on past memories of a less than
virtuous set of acts, words or thoughts. If we try to remedy a
past ill action there is always a certain amount of merit
attached to the effort -- especially if it is directed accurately
to the person(s) we wronged. But you are right if we do good
now for personal benefit, then the motive being selfish, the
fruit is hypocrisy.
<< But the goal of
Pratyekha Buddha hood which in effect is to bring the bonds of
KAMA to an
end, merely releases for a while the MONAD from contact with this
world of pain and suffering, and selfishly, it dissociates from
other monads which need its help. That is why I drew attention
to the final
question asked of the BODHISATTVA at the end of the 3rd fragment
VOICE -- "Shalt thou be saved and hear the whole world cry ?">>
<< DTB LOOKING AT S.D. I P. 27 VERSE 8, ONE MIGHT BE LED
TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUDDHAS AND MAHATMAS are not made to
"Rest" with all the rest -- they have transcended that condition,
therefore be said to be active as "The EYE
OF THE DANGMA ." And be actively at work in preparation for
the coming Manvantara.<<
They are working right now, yes. There are other
universes and manvantaric manifestations for them
to worry about than just ours.
DTB The subject of the S.D. is ourselves and our position in it.
The rest may have similar problems but they seem to be remote
from us. The assemblage of cooperating entities just on our
Earth and Solar system is far beyond our capacity to individually
consider them. Yet, Nature does this.
To me "the EYE OF THE DANGMA" represents the CONSCIOUS and
ETERNAL observation and regulation which only the Great Lodge of
the WISE can handle -- as suggested, each is a servant of the ONE
CENTRAL PURPOSE -- the benefit of all creatures -- as a Buddhist
<< DTB the "SUBSTANTIALITY" of the PRATYEKHA Buddha is a
mark of its limits, is it not?>>
<<DTB AGREED -- YET FOR US THAT EXOTERICISM is found to
be based on a comprehensible and logical basis of
esotericism and occultism. Or else the books and
information are misleading and senseless. They cannot
be 50 / 50.>>
Agreed. But you will also find some logic in
occult books which are pure hogwash. It is up to
us to find the meaning within any book.
<< DTB I prefer calling it observation and reasoning.
Faith is a word I dislike unless it is qualified. A "blind"
faith is something that does not help anyone. But, trust
in the things which have proved to be true, and an ability (and
invitation) to examine and verify lead me far more into trust
otherwise, and yet, as you suggest, independence demands that all
Observation is problematic because we all tend to see
things through our own egos and auric eggs, but this is
a limitation of life that we all have to live with. Until
we have direct experience, I don't see any other
resource but faith.
DTB I AGREE WITH THE LIMITATIONS YOU DISCERN However, if we can
compare notes and thoughts, there is a greater likelihood of
accuracy when more than one consult. This is a sharing that
reduces personal errors. I think it is part of the learning
process that views the Universe as a cooperative of interacting
<< DTB OUR CORRESPONDENCE SEEMS TO PROVE THERE IS VALUE
IN THE COMPARISON OF WHAT WE MAY HAVE INDIVIDUALLY
I would hope so (I have faith :-) )
>> DTB BETWEEN THE VERITIES OF SPIRIT AND THE ILLUSIONS
OF MATTER THERE IS A BALANCE POINT. I WOULD SUGGEST IT IS THE
CONSCIOUSNESS -- WHICH BEING UNITARY IS UNAFFECTED. IT PIERCES UP
THROUGH THE 7 STATES OF BEING AND SERVES TO UNITE THE MEMORY OF
ON ALL THOSE PLANES. IF YOU THROW LOGIC AND INDEPENDENT THOUGHT
WASTE BOX THEN IT SEEMS TO ME YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF IMPORTANT
INDIVIDUALIZING FACULTIES -- AT LEAST THOSE THAT SHOW A CLOSE
WITH THE REST OF THINKING AND FEELING HUMANITY. AND B Y THAT I
CONTACT WITH THE UNIVERSAL AND THE IDEAL.>>
I suspect that the "verities of spirit" are relative.
Even spirit is said to be empty of inherent existence,
although this is a tough one for logic to go along
with, and results in a mystical view of things. Rather
than throwing logic into the waste box, I keep it
teathered on a short leash.
DTB I think those difficulties arise because we always tend to
view things from our personal and limited position (hedged in by
matter and our memories and experiences). As we widen and
universalize, our view becomes less focused on the desire to
prove ourselves right, and centers on (as I think you aid
earlier) the desire to BE RIGHT because that is the law of
universality, of brotherhood, and of sharing. I believe I
advanced earlier the concept that Nature provides a living place
for all of us, even the most undeserving. And, the action of
Karma is that which tends to balance through readjustment of the
MOTIVES we habitually use.
<< DTB IF ONE ABANDONS THE NEED TO BE RIGHT, THEN ONE
CAN SUBSTITUTE FOR IT THE NEED TO BE UNIVERSAL, SPIRITUAL,
IDEAL -- ALL THOSE CONDITIONS AND VERITIES AND VIRTUES THAT
EVERYONE CAN EXPRESS OR GRASP AS IDEALS AND USE. IT IS NOT
THE TAKING FROM ANY ONE BUT THE AGREEMENT THAT THERE ARE
CERTAIN LEVELS OF VERITY AT THE BASE OF THE UNIVERSE AND OUR
OWN EXISTENCE THAT COINCIDE.>>
The path from right to universal is the correct one to
take, I think. And I certainly agree with your last.
But we have yet to reach agreement on just what
those "certain levels of verity" are.
DTB I always thought that the annals of Buddhism, or something
like the Bhagavad Gita, or THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT could provide
us with examples of moral and virtuous conduct .
I don't think that any code ought to be promulgated as final, as
there are constantly trials and events that involve our own
growing sense of fairness and justice. It is this junction
points that lead to developing the most strong aspects of motive.
So for each growing "Pilgrim" there are his own special decisions
and it would not be fair to him to impose some format -- however
great and noble." Once that the ideals are presented, it has to
be left to the participants to develop the means and methods
All "levels of verity" are personal. But that does not obviate
<< DTB UNIVERSALITY WOULD SEEM TO BE THE
"TOUCH-STONE" -- OF COURSE ONE MAY DENY EVERYTHING OR ONLY
THOSE CONCEPTS WHICH CAUSE A REVISION OF ONE'S THINKING --
BUT IF THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES, THEN THE SELECTION OF ANY
ONE OF THEM IS NOT A SELECTION OF THE "WHOLE." The WHOLE
transcends all the
may lower "PARTS."<<
How does one know what is universal? To do so implies
the skill to look beyond one's own worldview, and this
is hard. The inquisition honestly thought that toasting
women who were witches was the "right" thing to do, and
even God's will. There are probably people today who
think this way. How do we reach them?
DTB Toasting witches is hardly a recommendable practice for
"good Karma." But it touches on the idea that people ought to be
left free to do their best. This does not mean one should be
blind to evil and imposed might that is unfair and unjust. The
Buddha would recommend restraint, and Gandhi would have practiced
non-cooperation -- and recommended it to all the subjects of a
tyrant. And if the tyrant is overcome the greatest punishment
imposed on him/her would be restraint. No one can claim to be a
perfect judge or the arbiter of another's fate. There is no
excuse for an "Inquisition."
<< DTB AS I UNDERSTAND IT the Kama-manasic (Lower mind)
ideas being material are not help over to the new life except
as the skandhaic remnants of karmic (unfinished business)
and those have no "name" or "Coherency of identity" attached
to them for the burden or benefit of the reincarnating entity
Agreed. In fact,"consciousness" is itself one of the
five skandhas, meaning our human mind-stream.
DTB I would rather say that one of the aspects of CONSCIOUSNESS
becomes attached to the lower aggregates, skandhas. But
CONSCIOUSNESS as the impartial and ever-present link between the
Mind of man (in whatever plane or place) to the ABSOLUTENESS --
even if it only an immature concept -- is a far different thing
and certainly not one of the 5 "Skandhas." The coherence of the
Skandhas requires an exchange of conscious thought and
discussion, but it is not isolated, except when employed in the
psychic or physical sense.
>> The efflorescence of which H.P.B. writes in the KEY and
precisely the division between the illusory (that perishes) and
SPIRITUAL IDEAL) which "survives" in the BUDDHI-MANASIC capacity
returning Ego. It is, to me, just like school: ONE RETAINS THE
The errors and the false paths we took, are abandoned and
nature serves as a retardant to true
spiritual progress for the MONAD. >>
In a conventional sense, life is a school. But the
whole presumption is that there is a Self that needs
to be taught lessons, and this just isn't so. As long
as we believe that there is a Self that reincarnates
and learns lessons, so long will we be held in
mayavic chains. I do find Theosophy's lack of emphasis
on liberation to be a great failing, and one that
ultimately could kill the whole movement.
DTB That I sense is a fundamental difference here between our
outlooks. You try to explain to me all the hurry, push,
cataloging, and thinking that goes on, if there is not validity
to the preservation of that effort and those results somewhere.
What alternative is there to a "spiritual" SELF if it is not
immortality. Do you really think that you mean what you are
because of your heritage for this life?
What is it that pierces through those "mayavic chains?" Why
should "liberation" be such a great "reward?" Who wants to be
sitting doing nothing while the years and centuries roll by? If
I could offer a painting, or music, or some improvement to my
fellows over that space of time, I might respect myself much more
than the prospect of contemplation even on philosophy or
metaphysics, for an "immensity of years." And where did the
BUDDHA ever some out and say that was the GOAL ? I have never
seen it said in the DHAMMAPADA and that is the only record which
all the Bhikkus at the first convention held a year after His
death agreed on as being actually his own. The rest were the
hear-ay of one or more of them.
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application