Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00130)

March 24, 2001


Dear M-----I

Apparently in mankind we have a duality in the area of thought
whereby the Mind is placed mid-way between Wisdom (Buddhi) and
Ignorance or Folly (Kama). So we have two levels on which we may
choose to function: Wisdom and universality [Higher-Mind], or
the isolation and selfishness of ignorance and head-strong folly
[Lower-Mind]. These definitions are polar opposites so they
appear extreme. We, operating as the MANAS or the ONE
CONSCIOUSNESS that is our real base, have to choose where we will
direct our thinking.

If this theosophical thesis is correct, those who believe that
they understand "NOTHINGNESS" err in logic, for how can a BEING,
a MANIFESTATION, or a POWER OF THOUGHT that is FORM-LIMITED deny
its form, itself and its limitations? It is not even sure what
IT IS ! It talks without any logic to support it.

Sunya	is Illusion, in the sense that all existence is a
phantom, a dream, or a shadow. Yet this (in abstraction) is
PERCEIVED by something which is the very opposite: A REALITY, a
STABILITY, and an ETERNAL POINT OF COMPREHENSION. (Theos.
Glossary)

Sunyata is Void, space, eternal law, nothingness or, the "name"
of our Universe, in the sense that it is unreal and illusive.
A good illustration of this is the ATOM. It cannot be
objectivized, it is the eternal internal vortical motion that
creates the illusion of solidity, and then projects this onto the
physical world plane or screen of the molecule, and so on.
Theosophically this is using the astral (electro-magnetic) model
to eventually become objective, and "solid" to our physical
senses. But the Atom is essentially and totally invisible, and
intangible in a space of its own where it is eternally united to
"Matter.". Within it are the laws of the Universe, constantly in
circulation near and far, and continually working as eternal and
ever-present POWER and FORCE. And those are NO-THING -- physical
p- but EVERYTHING spiritually. ]

It resolves itself into one paradoxical question: ARE YOU OR ARE
YOU NOT? The evidence points to "presence" for all of us; but
by analysis we resolve ourselves totally out of the tangible and
physical, because of its "magical" elusive quality as something
non-physical. Yet IT IS. This is where reasoning based on
materialism totally breaks down. There is not bridge except
ENERGY, POWER and the INTELLIGENCE of a centralized and
harmonious FORCE and FORCES working in eternal harmony.

One might say that the resolution of this paradox can only be
achieved through considering the MONAD (far "smaller" than an
Atom or even the sub-atomic particles now theorized and whose
effects have been made visible through instrumentation.)

"Dark Matter": has been theorized as essential to the plenitude
of the Universe as force and energy. But the "visible Matter"
represented by stars, galaxies, planets comets, meteorites,
etc... amounts by calculated estimates, to only about 10% of the
total needed to explain the operation of gravity as a restraint
and balancing force in the Universe.. Even void space is found
to contain a host of atoms -- so nothing is totally VOID or
SPACELESS.

There is a great deal that our modern Science (evolved in the
past 3 / 500 years has to learn from ANCIENT SCIENCE. It still
has to discover what is already there and learn. And, NATURE
already contains it ALL, and has the necessary rules and laws to
provide for the harmonious existence of all the many beings
living in its embrace. So how are we going to explain awareness,
consciousness, intelligence and being in terms of law, evolution,
presence, void and space ? Then what about cohesion and
dispersion, gravity and repulsion, cooperation and strife ? How
do they exist? What do they represent? How are we involved with
them ? [ I am not being facetious, but deeply serious.]

An ancient sage described our Universe as a Circle, with a centre
that was "everywhere," and the actual circumference :"Nowhere."
Again a Paradox that only metaphysics can resolve.

A great Soul such as Buddha, Gandhi-ji etc... seems to acquire
prominence because they dare to be totally HUMAN. [ HUMANE ] We
are generally afraid to do that. What does "being Human" imply ?
Is it bumbling ignorance, or is it acute and careful wisdom ? If
wisdom, then WISDOM ABOUT WHAT?

As far as I can determine, there is no such thing as being
"ego-neutral." The word phrase is self- contradictory. If you
mean dispassionate, then it implies in Theosophy that the HIGHER
MIND is able to CONTROL and MASTER the Lower-Mind. This
introduces the very touchy moral/ethical question of "right
livelihood." On either accepts or rejects the concept that the
ideal person ought to live in harmless and charitable assistance
of others -- Gandhi, Jesus and Buddha exemplified this in their
lives. Why can we not do so also?

EGO [Mind-self] is a conscious center that is engaged in working
with Nature and other beings that share its environment.

Neutrality implies isolation and selfishness, and those two
qualities arise only from IGNORANCE; and to be "ignorant" is to
have knowledge and to refuse to use or decrease it. What can
remain stable on a knife-edge unless some interior intelligence
wards (by compensation) against upsetting interferences and
accidents ?

Enlightenment is knowledge and wisdom; and a sharing of
experience without any pre-set barriers or prejudices. Its
apotheosis is a UNIVERSAL WISDOM and a knowledge of KARMA as
applied to every part of the Universe. Only a human mind that
has chosen the path of ALL-KNOWINGNESS and service; of universal
charity and harmlessness will ever attain to that. That is the
Path preached by all the Buddhas of our Race.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: m
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 5:15 AM
To:
Subject: enlightenment


RE: enlightenment WHAT MIGHT THEOSOPHY SAY ABOUT IT ?

Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:40:56 -0800 dalval14@earthlink.net
To:


==============


To quote Bijoy Boruah:

Sunyata or Nothingness may be understood as the "field
of consciousness" which does not have a "centre" from
which (perspective) one feels living one's life,
ego-centrically, in the world. Our natural tendency is
to exist in that mode of consciousness which is
first-person centred, or ego-centred. There is the
possibility (howsoever hard it may be) of living a
life in the "impersonal" or "decentred" mode of
consciousness. Such a life would be lived in what I
call a "centreless" world --- a world that is not
viewed ego-specifically, but ego-neutrally. A
decentred, impersonal consciousness would be universal
consiousness, and a person whose life is sustained by
universal consciousness may be said to have a "self"
which I would describe as "uni-personal" self.

I would say that an example of universal consciousness
or uni-personal self would be the ego-neutral self of
a sage, or a saint. I am inclined to think that
Mahatma Gandhi in our modern times approximates such a
self. Historically, Gautam Buddha exemplifies this
consciousness or ego-neutral self.

We may get a glimpse of what a uni-personal self is
just by experimenting with ourselves. We all can try
to decentre ourselves from our ego-centred,
first-personally moulded life even by the least degree
of impartial reflection on our earlier conditions of
existence. We may then get a faint idea of what it is
like to be relatively ego-neutral. There is a definite
change of consciousness in this kind of attempt. One
feels one's existence is not "geared" to the
first-person point of view.
========

That might be seen as having some relevance, possibly, to
"enlightenment."

M===i