Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00036)

Thursday, April 05, 2001

Dear Jerry:

[ Something happened in my computer -- an error -- and I appeared
to lose an answer I was preparing, so as to answer your further
queries. -- to send to you. -- Now I look at this and wonder if
it was it. I tell you with my short work time, and lower output,
I get so I can't remember so well -- --- ---y no doubt ! ] Help
me out if you will.
If it is only a duplicate, then would you kindly send me your
reply and comments that are so far unanswered ?
Dal
========================================
Thursday, April 05, 2001 [ WAS THIS ALREADY SENT ? ]

Dear Jerry:

Thanks. As usual, let me insert some notes and queries below,

Dal

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:12 AM
To: dtb
Subject: RE: Manasic aspects? GAMES ?


<<"Games" have their uses -- are they not an allegory for Karma
and its
operations ? Or do you think they reflect "chance" only? >>

Chance is highly karmic, as you well know, Dallas. I
tend to look at karma as simply one of the rules of
the game of life.

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

DTB Each one develops his own personal approach,
However, Is there a universal one which covers all?
Other than KARMA, (general and individual) what "rules" in common
can we identify ?

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


<<If so, then are there not the well known "Laws of Chance ?">>

These too are karmic. Sometime karma offers possibilities,
and then "chance" comes into play as to which one will
be expressed.

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

DTB Seems to me that "Karma" and "Chance" are being
synonimized ? Karma we can trace to the cause, and Chance we
can't ? So, I presume reincarnation, continuous egoic progress
from life to life, are doubtful in your concept ? Are we then to
try and reconcile the whole of theosophy with a single life's
memory? How are we t account for the individual and his peculiar
mix of character, capacity, defects and talents ?

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


<<<They raise the pairs of opposites: Law universal vs. the
possibility of unregulated and frivolous "CHANCE." (Or, is that
local law
?) >>


I have discovered (came to believe?) that order/karma
and chance/chaos always go together as a duality.
As I have said before, I see very little difference in
saying that a cause is from a past life which is no
longer remembered, or calling it God's will, or in
calling it chaos or chance. Whether we hold our faith
in past karma or in God, its still faith. I don't need
faith to call it chaos, so I tend to prefer to do that.
Unless you actually can recall specific past lives, to
say that some event in this one was caused by a past
one, a great deal of faith or belief is required.


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

DTB And that leaves me is a sea of uncertainty
indeed. Yet I, as a unit of consciousness, memory, thought,
etc... know full well I exist. I was wondering once that I got
here, there would be some explanation for that, and also some
hint as to what to do next.

If the rules and speculations of modern psychologists,
philosophers, savants, etc... have large gaps in their
explanations, then where shall I acquire ay certitudes? It is
difficult to build on clouds of imagination, or hopes that are
dashed every moment by "fate or fortune." So why are we in this
situation? Wat it to be learned from it, if anything ?

I observe order and sequence around me, am I to negate that?

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

>>Looking around us at Nature and its vast
cooperative actions, which do we find more universal?>>

Agree, Dallas, that nature is fraught with
cooperative actions - but science now can clearly
demonstrate that it is fraught with chaos as well.
And I have experienced lots of chaos in my own
life, and have become a believer.

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

DTB Agreed there are many things we cannot "measure."
Also that measurement often destroys some aspect of the thing
being measured. But measurement (or its attempt) implies a
search for order, cycles, repetitiveness, etc... Laws ?

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


<<Sometimes we are overwhelmed by the unexpected, but, even so
does that
mean there is no LAW involved, even if We do not detect it?>>

What you are calling a "law" is exactly what I sometimes
call a "rule." I can't see any difference except in
the semantics, but apparently you do (?). The interesting
thing about the law/rule of karma is that it allows
for its own transcendence - liberation is itself
an effect of properly following a spiritual path (this
is one of the teachings of Tzongkapa, and I tend to
agree with it).


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

DTB rule or Law are the same to me too. An
orderliness which attunes the separate beings to each other --
but can these be observed and defined ?

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

>>I recall that both times in the Mahabharata, when the KARMA
fates and futures ) of the Pandavas was thrown into the
balance, (their integrity, honesty, dedication and patience were
being
tested) a game of dice (which princes could not refuse to play)
was
introduced by their evil cousins the Kurus, to show how a severe
reverse of
fortune could be met with honest equanimity, and how a promise
ought to be
kept. Needless to say the myth/legend recounts that the Kurus
were unfair
and loaded the dice against the Pandavas. So the outcome was a
FALSE and
dishonest one.<<

Dallas, you even take gaming too seriously. I don't
know what to say...

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

DTB OK I do tend to look at the effect, and wonder
exactly what the "moral" part of the equation is. But can anyone
help in this ? If "vice" and "virtue" are polar opposites, the
what is it in me that sees the difference? What can choose?
What is the Intuition (or is it the Voice of Conscience) that
warns me ? How can I hold a debate internally on the best way to
choose ? All this needs explanation. Do you say Theosophy does
not provide that ?

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


<<Yes, I think, as we consider Karma and the Evolution of the
whole of
Nature, to be serious stuff; yet, there is the humor of
incongruity if not
absolute absurdity that relieves tensions from time to time. I
think H.P.B.
indicated that of humor was a vital necessity for the Theosophist
to
treasure. She stated in one conversation, emphasizing two
things: "Common
sense;" and to that, she added "A sense of Humor.">>

I think of God's sense of humor every time I go to the
bathroom, or watch the results of eating too much
protein. His Great Work keeps me in stitches.

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

DTB sorry, but I don't see any evidence of a Personal
God anywhere? Of what use would such a construct be ? Do I
manufacture it or is it something pre-existent, are those who
support this idea prepared to prove it ? If I take the 3
attributes of Deity, then a personal god is totally illogical.
Who and how does the limited concept of WISDOM / LAW / PROGRESS
arise ? (I assume these remain the 3-fold attributes of Deity. )

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


<<But still I wonder that so many waste time. And there is so
little of
that around. Leisure and repose are moments of
recuperation for the expenditure of energy in some part of our
7-fold being.
But that does not mean it is COMATOSE in its entirety. >>

Agreed. I don't want to waste time either. Playing
the game of life consciously and deliberately (at
least to some degree) is not a waste of time. It is
rather what life is all about.

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

DTB But that does not tell me anything more than what
we started with, does it?
What is life for? Where does it lead us ? If the division Body,
soul, spirit is true, then how do I derive an understanding of
their interplay ? ( se S.D. I 181-2)

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



<<The Physical is only 1/7th of the whole. What does the rest
do?>>

Well, the spiritual doesn't 'do' anything at all.

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

DTB Without the "hub" the purpose of a wheel is lost,
The "Rim," or the "Spokes" might believe the "Hub" was
non-essential, yet it holds the whole structure together ? And
it moves little or not at all. Another: the value of a house is
not its walls, but the SPACE it encloses, and that is "no-thing"
until used, or filled with concrete objects.

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



<<Colored glasses are useful in situations that demand them. But
if we don
them we know we place a deliberate distortion on our reporting
senses.>>

Show me a single person in this world without such
glasses on, and I will show you a Buddha. You and I
are both wearing them while discussing this subject.
Taking life seriously doesn't help us to see it any
clearer, but usually just the reverse.

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

DTB Agreed again, but then whether We wear filters of
some kind is not essential to the search for stability, is it ?

Can we assume these superior beings were once men like we are
now, and that at some point they resolved that they would develop
their spiritual capabilities and test the validity of the local
and then, the universal set-up?

If there were not already a stable center ( Spiritual ?) in us
would we be able to conceive of it. We think our earth is pretty
stable, yet at the equator it whirls at about 1,000 miles an
hour, and the whole earth circles the sun at a far vaster speed.
Then the Solar System as a whole circles the Milky Way, and so
on.

Or if you prefer to go the other way -- if the molecule can be
defined the atom becomes a part of quantum mechanics -- and
sub-atomic particles are only concepts of real energy -- and
there are probably a whole series of still smaller centres of
energy -- no "end" either way. Yet this does not make our
existence invalid ! It does not destroy purposiveness as a prime
element in the concept of world and individual "progress."

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


<<Perception in terms of Karmic consideration ought always to
serve us as
that balancing "common sense." Are these not "tools" to be used
at our
"beck and call." >>

Our perceptions are ALWAYS karmic, even our spiritual
ones. The proper Path is not to try to determine which
are "right" and which are "wrong" as if such things
existed externally to us. The proper Path is to see
them for what they are, and to see ourself for what
we really are. Effective evolution is the increasing of
consciousness and everything else is bogus.

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

DTB No matter how described, (I mean: how clothed or
veiled) we seem to return to the CENTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS and its
experiences. From those can we not draw conclusions? I cannot
agree that we are pointless and so is Life and Nature. Does not
make good sense, even if the old Indian philosophers called life
a "LEELA" -- a dance, a drama. It had its rhythms and purposes,
even if was considered an "illusion." But then the concept of
the Akasa, the highest aspect of the astral Light, gives us a
recording permanency of even illusory will o the wisps.
Everything gets recorded. Sounds like a basis for Karma to me.

I also agree that cyclic law is a contrast to chaos. But I also
respect the concept that the general tendency of the Universe is
towards order and progress rather than a useless dispersal of
cluttered or disparate energies. Our "discussion" seems to
support the idea of cooperation rather than irrationality, yet
both, to be considered opposites, require a medial position which
embraces and recognizes the value of both. Is that not the MIND
as part of the MONAD ?

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

<<But what is actually our CENTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS?>>

Dzogchen calls it rigpa. Hinduism and Vedanta call
it cit. Most translations of Patanjali refer to is
as the Seer. It is the Ground that lies behind our
thoughts, which, like clouds, obscure of view of the
clear sky.

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

DTB Excuse me, but I cannot say that "clouds" in any
way help me define the "ground" or the "sky." They imply air,
temperature, moisture, the "dew-point," an equation for
flotation, and a dozen other factors -- which a scientist
recognizes -- but as a basis for being or thought, I don't get
the analogy.

They are conditioned and temporary limits to physical eyesight
(used as an analogy for mental perception). As a matter of fact,
regardless of ground, sky, clouds, it is still "I AM I" which
does the Perceiving. Patanjali uses several concepts for this
central POWER: SEER, PERCEIVER, WITNESS, etc... Each implies a
unit of consciousness that is independent of others, yet, it also
recognizes their coexistence and similarity to itself. Perhaps
it is the "scribe" who makes the Akasic records ?

"CIT" (chit) is a name given in Hindu philosophy (as I am given
to understand it) to ABSTRACT CONSCIOUSNESS -- it is often
paired with "achit" or unconsciousness (from our point of view,
embodied -- or drowned -- in matter, and the qualities and
sensations of a material environment). But both of these are
only the outer robes (because they come and go periodically) of
"PARABRAHMAM" or the "ABSOLUTE" which is conditionlessness, and
cannot be described in any of our terms.

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


<<Virtue will always be the opposite of vice and the difference
is LAW.>>

This is a very dangerous statement. Its the statement
that allowed Hitler to kills Jews, and it is now
allowing Muslims to desecrate Buddhist statues. Anyone
who thinks that they know vice from virtue is a
dangerous person who will often go to extreme ends
to justify their beliefs. I find this kind of
statement to be scary.

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

DTB If applied unilaterally, personally, physically I
agree it is very "scary." I was not so applying it. I was using
it from the impersonal and Universal view point. It comes back
to the basic: IS THERE LAW IN THE UNIVERSE, or is there none.
No 50/50 position is completely tenable, that I can see. But a
medial position between the Pole of SPIRIT and the pole of MATTER
is that position of the Mind, which sees and understands both of
these opposites. But in a way this may complicate things, since
the Mind, if it allows itself to be attracted to either SPIRIT or
MATTER adopts to itself some of the qualities of either. Hence
it is spoken of as either the Buddhi-Manas (wise mind) or the
Kama-manas (the desire wrapped mind.)

Fanatics (religious, political, etc... of any kind) are not the
ultimate rulers of anything, and least of all themselves and
history -- but they serve to obscure things -- AS THE DESTRUCTION
OF THE BAMIAN STATUES SHOWS US GRAPHICALLY TODAY. (See S.D. II
336-40) They were originally built millennia ago by the Wise
Teachers of Humanity to serve as a visible record of the
decreasing size of average humanity. Now only the alcoves and a
fragmentary outline survives -- and of course a developing legend
concerning them will now start on the nature and time of their
destruction.

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



<<I always knew Mind = Manas. It is a basic concept restated in
H.P.B.'s
KEY TO THEOSOPHY and in Judge's OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY.>>

The Sanskrit "citta" also translates as mind, and I wonder what
the difference is?

==============================
DTB See above -- actually it is CONSCIOUSNESS. MANAS
is Mind.
==============================



<<MAHAT is the GREAT PRINCIPLE and is the Master of Evolution
from first to
last in all worlds and the UNIVERSE (as I see it.). It is the
UNIVERSAL
VERBUM or LOGOS, and it is UNIVERSAL KARMA. It brings the
manifested
Universes into periodic being ...>>

Mahat is a personification of our own human collective
consciousness, a personification of atma. I don't believe in gods
and
goddesses except in the sense of mental projections
and psychic impulses.

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

DTB And I don't "BELIEVE" in gods Goddesses, etc at
all except as indices of some kind of psychic or mental stature.
If every human is a 7-fold being, a microcosm of the Universe
there is not power or stature from which he is excluded, so
special positions are quite valueless in my esteem.

Your definition of MAHAT seems to clash with the Sanskrit, which
says that it is "the first principle of Universal Intelligence
and Consciousness" -- of root nature or Pradhana -- or
Mulaprakriti (root Matter) -- It is said to produce both Manas
(the thinking principle) and ahamkara ( egotism, or the feeling
of I AM I in the Lower Manas ( Kama-Manas or the embodied
brain-mind).

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



<<The sense of immortality (as I understand it) is due to the
permanent accretion to the eternal MONAD of the aggregates
acquired from the Higher Manas of each incarnation. (H.P.B. in
ISIS
UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA , "Theosophist," Jan, 1886;
ULT --
H.P.B.'s Articles III 265)>>

It is interesting that your quote uses Buddhist
terminology to teach a non-Buddhist idea. And once
again you are confounding the divine Monad with its
"ray." The so-called "accretion" is not permanent
and is, in fact, an illusion due to our ignorance.

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

DTB The profound views of Hinduism and Buddhism are
not essentially different though perhaps couched in different
words and analogies. I don't consider myself bound to any one
school, but from any or all I try to draw that which seems to
clarify the thinking and is capable of being demonstrated or
proved (of course to my own satisfaction, and hopefully to that
of others)
How can you distinguish the MONAD ( or do you mean the universal
MONAS ?) from its "rays?" How can any one distinguish the ONE
SPIRIT from its many "rays?" { see S.D. I 570-575]

If you wish to have a fight with HPB's expressions you are
welcome. I quoted or rather summarized her statement made in the
article ISIS UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA.
She says the same thing in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (see KEY pp.
147-8, 156, 177-8, 194, 185, 199, 216-7 ) with regard to the
value of the Devachanic state.
I would say that if you desire to be selective, then using
snippets here and there of the philosophy of theosophy will fail
to yield a complete coherent whole. But that is something we all
have to work on. There is so much to learn. And some snippets
attract us more than others do.

Best wishes, as always

Dal




Thanks for your thoughts Dallas.

Jerry S.


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net