Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00041)

Referring to my previous post Re: Science vs. theosophy, I thought the 
following post, which came in today from the debate between two quantum 
scientists on the JCS online forum, might be of interest to those 
theosophists on this forum who are also Buddhist scholars. I'd be curious to 
know what relationship these scientist's ideas have with respect to the 
theosophical teachings? One of them has to be wrong. Which one? Or, are they 
both off the wall as far as the esoteric (HPB's) teaching goes?:-)

Note: In a previous discussion I had with Peter Mutnick several years ago, he 
debunked my ABC theory and implied that theosophy as presented by HPB was 
devil worship.:-) As an example of his position, I have also included below 
one of the early letters in our debate on the U. of Arizona Quantum Mind 
forum. (Incidentally, being a brilliant, more or less theosophically minded 
quantum physicist, after a long series of letters, he later apologized and 
retracted his negative statements about theosophy (as well as ABC -- which 
he, along with some of the other quantum physicists didn't like, I suppose, 
because I never use any if their scientific, or even theosophical, jargon or 
formulas) -- and we are currently on relatively friendly terms.:-)

LHM

------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter Mutnick
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com 
Re: [jcs-online] Debate with Raul Banerjee on Abhidhamma
Date: 04/05/01

saint7peter@hotmail.com writes:

>[Raul Banerjee]
>Again in the discussion we will use the term 'Buddha's view' with the 
>assumption that the formal model presented in the Abhidhamma followed 
>directly from the understanding of Shakyamuni.
>
>[Peter Mutnick]
>I do NOT agree to stipulate this! You must present some historical 
>evidence, as to the origin of the Abhidhamma texts, etc., to substantiate
>such a claim, and secondly you must present some quotes from the Abhidhamma
>text to show that *you* are presenting it accurately. I by no means concede
>that, not as any kind of insult to you, but just as a recognition that
>people are sometimes way too loose in their scholarship to ferret out 
>correctly intricate issues like the ones we are discussing here. I am not 
>just presenting to you some hand-me-down dogma - I am telling how I as my 
>own seer view these matters. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I am
>not presenting dried dung as caviar.
>
>[Raul]
>The chitta as conceived in the Abhidhamma is a pulse of experience and.is an 
>irreducible facet of reality analogous to say electromagnetic radiation.
>
>[Peter]
>I believe the chitta is the mental pole of an actual entity, which makes it 
>much more real than electromagnetic radiation. According to Whitehead,
>actual entities are the *res verae* and *causa sui*, as well. In 
>conventional quantum theory, electromagnetic radiation is neither.
>
>[Raul, cont.]
>...The same is true of chittas. The human brain (or any other brain for that 
>matter) no more produces chittas as the crystal 'produces' x-rays, yet
>the stream of chittas ceaselessly interacts or 'contacts' the material states
>of the brain and nervous system which not only constrains its flow but also
>modifies the sequences of material events. This process the Abhidhamma
>theorists claimed operated under known laws and the 24 Bridging Relations
>were designed to comprehensively account for all the causal interactions
which made this process possible.
>
>[Peter]
>Where does the stream of chittas come from, according to you? Can it exist
>independently of a brain, as x-rays can exist independently of the crystal?
>What then is its origin?
>
>[Raul]
>Again, the chitta must not be confounded with notions of 'pure 
>consciousness'. In Buddha's view every chitta must have two invariable
>correlates: 1. its contents and associated cognitive functions (the chief
>being volitional energy) grouped together under the general term 'cetasiks'
>and 2. an object which can be either sensory or 'cognitive'.
>
>[Peter]
>'Pure consciousness' is amala vijnana, so perhaps it would be better to
>call chitta fundamental consciousness, since the actual entities are the 
>fundamental constituents of reality. As for you claim that chetasika *must*
>accompany the chitta, I disagree, since chetasika is only the "thinking
>consciousness" and it is superseded by chaitanya, or "spiritual 
>consciousness", as the higher correlate of chitta. This is the very essence
>of the Buddha's meditational practice, BTW. The stream of momentary being
>is thereby purified and spiritualized. This results in the sattvic mind,
>which is the condition of a bodhi-sattva.
>
>[Raul]
>So the stress is primarily on interaction ('contact') between the three
>associated streams chitta - cetasik - rupa, rather than identity.....only
>the chitta and its associated cetasiks are always one hundred per cent
>in phase from genesis to collapse.
>
>[Peter]
>To the degree that this is so, then why do you doubt the obvious conclusion
>that the fully correlated chitta and chetasika constitute nama in relation
>to rupa? If so, how can you deny that the teaching of the Buddha was the
>oneness (identity) of mind and body (nama e rupa)?
>
>[Raul, cont.]
>This is not true of chitta-cetasiks and its allied material qualities and
>vice versa. For example when a physical sense object contacts a sense base
>the stream of chittas is causally constrained and flows down an appropriate
>pathway but it does so in the next 'moment' subsequent to the 'moment'
>of physical contact. That there is always a lead or lag in phase between 
>chitta-cetasiks and its causally related stream of material events.
>
>[Peter]
>According to the Sutra of Hui Neng (the Sixth Patriarch of Zen), there
>are six bases of the senses, six sense organs, and six sense objects. The
>six sense organs are noumenal, the six sense objects are phenomenal, and the
>six bases of the senses are horizontal, representing the leveling of the mast
>of ego which allows the penetration into the higher worlds of metaphysical
>reality. So, your whole notion of a *physical* sense object is 
>non-sensical. Sense objects are phenomenal, not noumenal (physical), and
>ever since the demise of classical physics we have learned that they *must*
>be distinguished. Then it is quite non-sensical as well for a sense object
>to contact a sense base. It is obvious that the trans-world sense bases
>allow for the contact between the physical sense organs and the phenomenal
>sense objects. This notion of sense bases corresponding to the great 
>elements (mahabhutas) is a very deep and mysterious teaching. The sense
>bases turn the correlated sense objects and sense organs into basis states
>for an observation by a meta-physical observer.
>You are just mixing up the modes of nature, conflating them in such a way
>as to result in total confusion. The stream of chittas is causally 
constrained
>by the law of its own becoming (its dharma) and by nothing else! The 
>present actual entity, as a subject, prehends all past superjects, and it 
>does so through the medium of objects, defined by their mediumship. It
>must then join with those multifarious objects and bring them into the unity
>of an actual world during the superjective stage of the process. This 
joining
>is the contact in the physical world with the mediumistic objects, and
>it is governed by the expansions of the superject as a causal principle. All
>of this occurs within the sattvic mode described by organic process theory.
>
>[Peter, prev.]
>So, the conclusion seems clear: insofar as chitta and chetasika are 
>correlated and brought into relation with rupa, there is causal closure
>of the physical world and more of a relation of identity than of interaction.
>
>[Raul]
>I thought just the reverse was the case !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>[Peter]
>In the sattvic mode there is the kind of momentary process you ascribe
>to the rajastic mode. In the tamastic mode there is the external causal 
>constraint you ascribe to the free process in the sattvic mode.
>
>[Peter, prev.]
>However, Banerjee's inherited notion of the manyness of the chittas is not 
>quite right, as can be seen by examining the notion in the context of the
>Whiteheadian scheme. It is rather the case that, as Whitehead avers, "the
>many become one and are increased by one".
>
>[Raul]
>I am sorry I have not studied the Whiteheadian Scheme so am not competent
>to make any comment.....but the fact does remain that Buddha's model deals
>with several non-reducible entities and is thus pluralistic.
>
>[Peter]
>It is a shame, because both William James and Alfred North Whitehead have
>brought the esoteric Buddha knowledge into the sphere of Western thought and 
>with some improvements and clarifications over Eastern dogmas passed down
>for millenniums with some considerable degree of degradation, no doubt.
>It is true that *early* Buddhism was radical pluralism, as established
>by Tscherbatsky, but as you may know, Nagarjuna undid all that and showed
>that only the oneness can be fundamental. Both James and Whitehead are 
>pluralistic, but Whitehead is already moving toward the completeness of
>oneness. James is still basing his conceptions on the external 
>(non-fundamental) brain (as a given), while for Whitehead nothing is real
>but the actual entities (chittas) themselves. Whitehead, however, has still 
>not realized the the chittas as sparks of the universal cosmic consciousness
>(dharmakaya). The Nagarjuna of the Modern Age has yet to arise, apparently.
>
>[Peter, prev.]
>As for Buddha's doctrine of contact, it comes from his teaching on the chain 
>of causation (pratitya-samutpada). The chain begins with ignorance (avidya)
>concerning the momentary nature of being. So, the chitta is from outset
>bracketed or excluded from consideration.
>
>[Raul]
>I don't see how this follows !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>[Peter]
>The pratitya-samutpada, which describes the condition of a sentient being
>in contact with the material world, is the Second Noble Truth, which is the
>truth of the cause of suffering. The Buddha Dharma (Chitta) has been 
>forgotten.
>
>[Peter, prev.]
>The entire process then occurs between the chetasika and the rupa. It
>is rather like the Oedipal complex in psychoanalysis. The rest of the chain
>goes: samskara, vijnana, vedana, nama-rupa, shadayatana, sparsha, trishna,
>upadana, bhava, jati, jara-maranam. The first three of these are types
>of chetasika and they combine to constitute nama in relation to rupa.
>
>[Raul]
>I am sorry Peter, but here you make factual mistake vijnana is not a cetasik
>but is the chitta itself.
>
>[Peter]
>Oh nonsense, Raul! Vijnana is one of the five skandhas, which were viewed
>by Avalokiteshvara as five heaps. They are the accumulated energies of
>the sentient being that carry over from one lifetime to the next. They are
>most certainly NOT the momentary, instantaneous, and spontaneous flashes of
>true being, as are the chittas, except in the sense that their true 
substance,
>
>insofar as they possess any (which is in fact denied - they are said to
>be empty) can be comprised by nothing else than the chittas. I challenge
>you to produce any scripture that equates chitta and vijnana. If there is
>such a scripture, it is not authentic, but I doubt you can even find that in
>an inauthentic scripture, it is such an obvious mistake.
>William James considered them both as definitions of consciousness. He
>embraced vijnana as the knowing function, but rejected chitta as the 
>mind-stuff view of consciousness. Whitehead embraced chitta, but he lacked
>the courage to fly in the face of James, so he tried to dodge the issue.
> However, he is unambiguous that his subjects are substances (the only 
>substances).
>
>[Raul, cont.]
>Buddha held that every chitta had its allied set of memory formations or
>sankharas which are nothing but cetasiks to a chitta. The model only does
>include sanna (perception) and vedana (sensation) as cetasiks which are not 
>sankharas. There are thus a total of 52 cetasiks composed of sanna, vedana
>and 50 sankharas.
>
>[Peter]
>There are other types of chetasika also (not just the a-rupic skhandas),
>such as the bhutas, manas, buddhi, and ahamkara. These are the chetasikas
>associated more with the chitta than with the rupa. There are also the
>ego-functions: memory, volition, desire, and intellect. The 
>psycho-physical parallelism in fact requires the symmetry of samjna and
>samskara, vijnana and vedana, but only samskara, vijnana, and vedana are
>implicated in sangsaric existence. Samjna is the fourth or Mother element
>to the Father, Son, and Spirit.
>
>[Peter, prev.]
>This is a rather mystical notion in that it postulates the senses to be a 
>kind of ground state of all existence - they are the base upon which the
>rest of the edifice is built. But more than that, from the causal sea
>of the senses arises none other than the deific essence itself. This is 
>conceived in three terms: sparsha (contact), trishna (craving), and upadana
>(clinging). The whole cause of suffering can really be seen right here
>in the reaction of the sentient being to contact with the material world.
> If one instead recognizes Gautama and Kurma as the personifications of 
>
>Sparsha and Trishna and Purushottama as the true subject, signified by 
>Upadana, with whom one should never lose contact, then one can "let go 
>and let God" and one's life will become sublime, or so the teaching goes.
>
>[Raul]
>See Peter, you are free to hold any view but this deviates completely from
>the standard Abhidhamma model.
>
>[Peter]
>You will have to substantiate that to convince me. First produce the quotes
>from your sources and then support you sources with historical research.
> Authentic Buddhism, like authentic Christianity, eschews excessive reliance
>on the written word, but since you are claiming the authority of the written
>word, not the legitimacy of your own ideas, you must present your sources.
>
>[Peter, prev.]
>On the other hand, however, chetasika is itself only the "thinking 
>consciousness" and not the truest companion of chitta. The truest 
>companion, or guru, is chaitanya, or "spiritual consciousness".
>
>[Raul]
>The model does not postulate any other entity apart from the stream of
>chittas as 'spiritual consciousness'. Nirvana is classed as a 'cognitive
>object' distinct from the chitta - cetasik - rupa triad.
>
>[Peter]
>You said: "In Buddha's view every chitta must have two invariable 
>correlates:...". I am saying that chetasika (thinking consciousness) is not 
>the truest correlate of chitta, but chaitanya (spiritual consciousness) is. 
>Your rejoinder here is just hypocritical.
>The notion that Nirvana is just a cognitive object and not the essential
>reality of enlightened existence only testifies to the depravity of your
>system. In my view, Nirvana is the cessation of the tamastic bonds of
>external causation and the eternal dwelling in the organic process of 
>self-causation.


-----------------------------------------
From: saint7peter@hotmail.com (Peter Mutnick)
To: QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Date: 11/10/99

Peter Mutnick writes:

>[Leon Maurer]
>
>The next 3 books describe the whole course of meditative practice to
>eventually attain all the "Siddhis" or psychic powers, and thence, proceed
>to the final emancipation or enlightenment of the soul--which, in Judges
>theosophical view, is "Buddhi," the vehicle of spirit, and "Atma," the
>"spirit in man", or his individual "ray" of pure awareness.
>
>[Peter Mutnick]
>
>Thank you for clarifying the source of your version of Patanjali. Theosophy
>is an old death cult, ala Egypt in the days of the Amenhoteps. Material is
>bad - spiritual is good - this the tree of knowledge of good and evil that
>cost us our immortality and resulted in the wished for death. Suffice it to
>say, that although there is some truth to Judge's notion of strata, it is
>filled with spiritual pride and bias against God as immanent in nature and
>immortal. Their magazine was called "Lucifer" - no coincidence. Let me
>hasten to add that not all Theosophists are cut from the same cookie cutter.
> Some are free of the Satanic bias, but many are not. An insider once
>assured my that many of the high ups in the organization were "psychopaths."
> Krishnamurti renounced the organization and their plans for him, after
>they had hailed him as their savior.

Please inform us upon what evidence do you base your presumptions about the 
nature of theosophy (which, of course has no relationship to the validity of 
the Judge transliteration of Panatanjali's Aphorisms) as being a "death cult" 
related to the "Egypt in the days of Amenhotep"? Also, in all of the 
writings of W.m Q. Judge, I have never found one statement that indicates a 
"spiritual bias against (an impersonal) God" as the divine intelligence, 
consciousness and power behind universal evolution. In my view, as a serious 
researcher into not only the scientific and philosophical teachings of 
theosophy, but also into all other ancient and modern scientific and 
philosophical works that have something to say about the relationships bet
ween matter, mind and consciousness--your apparently religiously biased and 
simplistic non sequitur statements about the nature of theosophy--that appear 
to be nothing more than unfounded prejudicial opinions--have no place in a 
scientific discussion. 

Apparently, you have every little knowledge of both the philosophy or the 
history of theosophy. Your pejoritive reference to the magazine Lucifer is 
equally prejudicial in denigrating Mr. Judge, since the word "Lucifer" was 
used, as explained by the original editor, H. P. Blavatsky, simply because it 
refers to the "light" of wisdom, and has nothing to do with satanic worship, 
as you imply. 

The word theosophy itself, means "divine wisdom," and, except for comparative 
references to ancient Egyptian sciences and philosophies, has nothing to do 
with Egyptian history, their religions or their cults. In fact, most of the 
root theosophical teachings, which are presented as " The Synthesis of 
Science, Religion and Philosophy" (The subtitle of Blavatsky's monumental and 
seminal work, *The Secret Doctrine*), are related to the scientific basis of 
both cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis, and are alleged to stem from ancient 
esoteric writings that predate the Egyptian dynasties by many thousands of 
years. These teachings also relate to neo-platonic philosophies that are the 
basis of most Eastern modes of thought underlying the scientific and 
philosophical teachings of the Vedantists and the later Buddhists, and are 
very close to the teachings of Lao Tse and those of the early Hebrews, as 
later interpreted by the Kabbalists. Also, to claim that the internecine 
activities of the theosophical societies, or those of their members or former 
members, has anything to do with the theosophical philosophy, its fundamental 
principles of "divine but ineffable origin, Universal laws of cycles, and 
evolution," or its scientific teachings (related to cosmic and 
anthropo-genesis and the nature of man's inner being and its divisions into 
related fields of consciousness from spirit to matter) is quite unfair, and 
does nothing to add to your credibility as a serious scientific thinker. 

It is my experience, based on a comparative study of theosophy in conjunction 
with the most advanced scientific theories of physics, physiology and 
biochemitry, that much of the findings of modern science, stemming from the 
revolutionary insights of Einstein, and the quantum physicists that have 
followed in his footsteps, have been presaged in the Secret Doctrine. To any 
scientist who would have perspicacity to wade through the tome and cull the 
root teachings from the chaff of comparative religious and philosophical 
confirmations, it would be as plain as the noses on their faces -- that 
Einstien could have gotten the (previously scientifically unpredictable) 
E=mc^2 insight directly from that book. Read what Feynmann had to sat about 
Einstiens insight (on the web site below). In fact.there is some evidence 
that Einstein used the Secret Doctrine as a textbook. 
(See: http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html ) 

[Peter Mutnick]
>So, the dissociation of the Buddhi from the Chitta may be desireable from
>a certain point of view, but that point of view is hardly ultimate. The
>status of the incarnate soul is something that Lucifer disputed from the
>beginning and is apparently disputing still.

Since you apparently believe there is such a personage as Lucifer, it appears 
that it may be you who, as a prejudicial materialistic thinker willing to 
rest on hearsay authority for your opinions, is the Satanist, rather than the 
founders of the theosophical movement -- who, incidentally, are not 
responsible for the possibly few psychopaths who turn up in any group, 
incuding, possibly, scientists.:-) 

Leon Maurer