Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00085)

Saturday, April 14, 2001

Thanks Jerry:

Reading and thinking on your comments, it occurs to me that we
approach the same things from different angles.. The main one is
that I visualize the urge to improvement as including everything
and, tentatively have called "perfection." You seem to
emphasize only the embodied mind and its limits.
Here are some more comments below:

Dal


===================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:12 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Responses to Dallas

<< DTB Yes I also know the history of its evolution.
But inasmuch as everything is a balance between POSITIVE and
NEGATIVE the loss must go SOMEWHERE. Science is fine for accurate
observation. When it comes to speculate upon those, it tends to
work on the
hypothesis that the rules have been invariable since eternity,
and so on
into the unforeseeable future. This is pure HYPOTHESIS. Nothing
proves it.
Paleontological, anthropological and geological estimates vary
widely --
even "dating" methods all show some inexactitude. So to base
supposed FACTS
on pre theory is always dangerous and in one examines the past
150 year
those changes will be seen and admitted. Ay best we can speak of
the
PRESENT.>>

JERRY: What loss? Entropy is increasing. Order is decreasing,
if that is what you mean, but time tends to do that to us,
doesn't it? I agree that most of the laws of science are
not eternal - for example I don't think that radioactive
decay rates are constant, rather I think that they are
increasing, which would put past events even farther back
in time (as you know, these decay rates are used for
carbon dating). New findings have pushed humanity back to
about 6 millions years ago. Science is slowing getting
to Blavatsky's figure.

==================================
NEW

DTB Of course, I put it upside down. Sorry. But I
was assuming also that the energy came to the physical plane from
the superior planes: i.e. Spiritual to Manasic, Manasic to Kamic,
Kamic to Pranic, Pranic to Astral and finally from the ASTRAL
MODEL to the physical. Anyway the energy has to go somewhere.
Our "physical matter' is not PHYSICAL AT ALL, but only a mode of
perception of basic forces such as electro-magnetism at a rate of
vibration that provides some degree of apparent SOLIDITY. To
know the others and their "Nidana" we have to use our Mental
vision which transcends the astral, pranic, kamic and
Lower-Manasic. But the keys to this are not made public.

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


<< DTB I agree the WORDS are incongruent and
misleading. If the
cyclic theory (a fact according to occult records) is admitted,
then the
"beginning" disappears and we have an endless chain -- of which
our PRESENT
is a small slice.>>

JERRY: If what you say above is so, then where is this "progress"
you keep talking about?

----------------------------
NEW

DTB As far as I can guess, looking to the description
we are given of 7-fold Nature and Man, the progress is in
understanding and discerning the propagation of force through the
7 planes and thus determining its laws, and our duties. If we do
not accept this conception then the Theosophical scheme is
worthless. Evolution is happenstance and there can be no final
"goal." But I wonder why this emphasis on chaos has arisen?

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


<<The concept of an infinitesimal "life-unit" (MONAD) which is
eternal, and whose companions fill all SPACE and TIME and are in
constant MOTION -- >>

JERRY: Blavatsky's "divine monad" is outside of space and
time altogether, and is thus time-independent (i.e., t=0).
What is within space and time and therefore has Motion
is the "monadic ray" which is a creative self-expression.

-----------------------------------
NEW

DTB Whether in or out of our kind of space perception
it is always within the range of mental perception and
comprehension, is it not ? There has to be a grasp of and a
reliance on the real definition of forces that shape
progressively the various planes and their correlation.
Example Indeterminism, String Theory, etc... ]

If we are too bound to the physical we set up barriers to the
rest which are CAUSAL and we then cannot perceive them easily.

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



<<these are endowed with an INTELLIGENCE
that "grows" through experience over billions of "our" years --
that acquires Self-consciousness, and whose destiny is an
indescribable UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF (ALL) -- is all
this a construct, a fantasy? >>

JERRY: I think that this is all true, for the "ray" but not
for the monad itself. At the end of a manvantara of expression
the "ray" realizes itself as one with the monad and
this blissful reunion continues throughout the pralaya.
At the beginning of the next manvantara the monad sends
out a "ray" and the cycle repeats itself. Its like
the reincarnation cycle only on a larger cosmic scale.
Just as the reincarnating Ego is not "in" our physical
body, so the monad is not "in" our atma-buddhi.

===============================
NEW
DTB Is not the "ray" a full "agent" or
"representative" of the MONAD with all its potentials included ?
that's why I made no distinction. SPIRITUAL is SPIRITUAL. I
would say that the SPIRITUAL RAY of the ATMA is derived from the
UNIVERSAL and IMPARTITE ATMAN -- or the ABSOLUTENESS.

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




<< Are we to say that you and I and
the rest are all illusions because our "progress" is indefinable
in purely MATERIAL TERMS ?>>

JERRY: No, we are rather to say that all are illusion
because neither you nor I nor the rest have any real
inherent or permanent existence. The "I" is an illusion
that simply doesn't exist beyond our imputing it.

===========================
NEW
DTB You may think that the "I" as presently embodied
in my physical material body is an illusion and I cannot but
agree.

But as an illusion in dialog with another we seem to be doing a
pretty good job of work and thinking. Also I for one don't feel
"illusory" at all.

H.P.B. in the KEY states that the "materialist" as she describes
him there, will mentally do this trick of eliminating himself.
But I think if we start with the concept of the immortality and
eternity of the MONAD logic would prevent this error. In any
case of what possible good is it wither to the individual who
thinks that way or to anyone else?

I know you are not in any way a "materialist," but then I seem
to be confused by the positions you seem to take.

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

JERRY: According to materialism, the "I" does exist. I am
NOT a materialist in any way. My own experiences assure
me that the "I" does not exist as it appears to. Your
last question above shows the problem I am having. I
do NOT consider my mind to be capable of securing anything.
I would, like Buddhism does, carefully distinguish
between an inherent "I" and the mind. There is no "I"
but there is mind, but its not the way we think it. Thoughts
are just as illusive and unreal as material objects.

==========================
NEW

DTB IF the MIND comes from somewhere, what is its
origin and parentage ? What are its duties? How does it relate
to other beings in the Universe?

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


<< DTB Yes, and the so-called "empty space" is now being
filled mathematically with the necessity for "dark matter" which
balances existing visible matter and gives a better cohesion to
"gravity." There are many unanswered questions, but the modern
discoveries seem to be filling in the "prophecies and so-called
gaps" which we think theosophy has in H.P.B.'s presentation.
Trouble is we really haven't studied H.P.B.'s THEOSOPHY
carefully -- I know I haven't although I've been at it for many
years. I think it reconciles all
philosophical/theological/antiquarian
views. At least it does not jeer at anything except insecure
theories.>>

JERRY: My suspicion is that all theories are insecure,
some more so than others. Manas is very suspect in my
book, and Truth, if its anywhere at all, lies beyond
manas and its very limited capabilities.

---------------------------------------------------
NEW

DTB If you mean the embodied Lower Manas, I agree, but
then I am also talking about the Higher Manas with its roots in
the INFINITE and the SPIRITUAL ALL. As CONSCIOUSNESS it is able
to pass unaffected through all planes and register the events and
correlations of thought and event there.

DTB But then even MANAS comes from somewhere -- and
as far as I can see it is CONSCIOUSNESS, awareness of self and
the "other." If so, then why not allow it to extend far beyond
the range of the "embodied mind ?" H.P.B. does place it in the
MONAD along with ATMA and BUDDHI. It is the essential "third"
which limits the ever unlimited "duality."

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


<< DTB To accept that analogy a number of things need to
be made clearer.
1. Who "Watches ?" What is its "nature?" Why is it there
?>>

JERRY: Good question, and the end of our quest for truth
will likely answer it. We have the ego, the mind, the
individuality, the Self, the Higher Self, the Ego,
the Reincarnating Ego, atma, atma-buddhi, atma-buddhi-manas,
and so forth and so on. These are all watchers, even as
they are all temporary illusions.

=============================
NEW

DTB WHY do you (without any logic that I am able to
apprehend) hold that these are "illusions?" I simply cannot
understand the concept of NOTHINGNESS or TEMPORARINESS when we
are confronted with a universal plenum. That is experience. The
other is speculation on a contrasting "something" which is
undefinable (do far to me) either in logic or in metaphysics as I
understand them. How can you adopt something which cannot be
explained?

Yes, I do realize the limitations of the "embodied mind," but
there is that in me which transcends that set of limitations. I
am sure you have it too.

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



<<2. Between "clouds" the "empty Sky" is filled with air,
vapor, elementals, and the rest of the Universe terminating
(figuratively) with the perception in space/time of the enormous
distances to the limits of what it can "see.">>

JERRY: You are taking my little analogy too far. This is
a good example of manas looking at all the trees and
missing the forest of my intent. Maybe you can forget clouds
and just look at your thoughts, then carefully look at the
small gap between them, where one thought ends and just
before the next one starts. Then tell me what you see.

===========================
NEW

DTB To continue the analogy there is perception of
the "cloud-thoughts." These lead to conclusions, and have
inter-relations that seem clear to me. I do not perceive "gaps"
between them as the CONSCIOUSNESS can consider selectively or all
as a group instantaneously. Linearity, planarity and volumetry
(solids of 3 dimensions) , and possibly other "dimensions"
(including time and/or a parallel state to passive perception and
that is active performance by choice) -- are all views limited
in time and sequence as perceived by the embodied Mind. But if
they are removed to a different plane, then they are in different
conditions and even the laws of relationship may be different
from those of the physical plane we are so familiar with.. But
they interpenetrate always. One can isolate one's MEMORY
concerning an event or a thought (a cloud ?) but the space
between is still filled with "life-units" even if they are not
involved in the memory pictures we create or refer to.

Take another example, we are continuously penetrated by magnetic
fields, {Cosmic, Solar, Planetary, Earthy, the thought-desires of
other humans, the emotions and instincts of the animals, etc., )
there is hardly any way we have of isolating or distinguishing
one from the other physically, unless it is extremely strong, or
we have constructed the right kind of apparatus to isolate and
examine any one of them -- and even then, we are unsure of their
presence or absence, since they may be there, but either of a
tenuity that we cannot register accurately, or emanate from a
plane which is totally different from the physical perceptive
plane we know so well. (For instance the "astral," or the
"psychic," or the "spiritual.")

If we cannot perceive them, how can we deny them ? At best we
can say "maybe." And keep an open mind for new evidence. But
denial may be merely shutting ourselves up voluntarily in a
sphere of continued ignorance. Personally, while not
understanding everything, I would rather keep a space reserved
for things that are at present inexplicable, but, which have
happened, and have been observed, I think they deserve
recognition -- and perhaps in the future that relationship and
explanation that adjusts them to what we presently think of a
'norm' will be made clear. ISIS UNVEILED is full of the record
of events which remained inexplicable to observers until the
occult. Laws were made plain.

The contrary is also true, if we can perceive them, then we have
proved the illusory nature of our present limitations. Something
of the nature of similarity or of permanency has made the
observation. I would like to know what that is.

Somewhere there is a balance and a harmony -- to be recognized
and employed. Somewhere in me there is an equivalence which does
not reject but seeks to understand.

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


<<3. Why deny what one can neither prove nor disprove? If you
say there is no "Eternal Pilgrim," you may be speaking for
yourself, but, not necessarily for me, or Tsong ka pa or the
Buddha. >>

JERRY: Actually, I am echoing Tzongkapa and Buddha here.
There is a temporary pilgrim, but it has no permanence
because it is changing and growing. How can you say
that something can change over time and still be
permanent? How can a pilgrim grow and stay permanent
at the same time?? This is too illogical for me.

================================
NEW

DTB What I mean is that the POINT OF PERCEPTION, the
CONSCIOUSNESS is always stable and self-existent. It passes
through and registers the phenomena of various shifting planes.
Each of these follows its own laws, BUT are they not perceptible
by the SELF -- the CONSCIOUSNESS?

Instability and transition does result from changes. But the
CAUSE of the variances, as also the event, in space and time,
ought to be looked into.

If the observer is also a variant, then the observation will be
skewed by all the various changes and factors that have to be
reckoned. (This becomes like an problem in spatial navigation to
another body, and then a return to the starting point on Earth.).
But I do not see that this difficulty ought to result in a total
denial of existence or of the experience, as observed and
recorded. If the cycle and other coordinates of the experience
can be determined does that not permit or allow us to advance a
result? How is it possible to pre-judge? How are we helped by a
total denial of either existence or experience? Can we do away
with ourselves? (And I don't mean suicide.)
========================================

<< The repetition of another's doctrine (in either your or
my case) does not prove we have understood the original meaning
We may grasp or not grasp meanings, but how do they equate with
REALITY or even "THINGS AS THEY ARE?">>

JERRY: I am really not trying to argue with you over
whats real or not real. I am simply arguing over your
illogical statements, that apparently you find
logical (?). Most disturbing. For example, somehow
you can admit that the Self changes and grows any yet
you label it permanent.
=================================
NEW
DTB	What I meant was that the SELF (ATMA) in order to become
self-conscious has to use "forms" or "material" (paradoxically
derived from itself as "matter" -- Maha-Buddhi -- ) and as
manifested Nature consists of these, the memories as accretions
add the increasing dimensions of this capability.. No I agree it
does not "change" during Manvantara, but we must remember that it
is only a periodical EMANATION from the ABSOLUTE. I have no
other way at present of putting this idea forward.
The only other statement that bears possibly on this is the one
that states nothing g is ever obliterated. The impressions made
in the AKASA are PERMANENT -- presumably in, thorough, and after
Pralayas and Maha-Pralayas. They would form the basis for the
Plan and Laws of a future Manvantara -- a re-manifestation.
=======================================

You want to give it true
existence, and yet you admit that it is dependent. It
is hard for me to try to discuss these subjects when
I find them to be so illogical as to be self-evidently
absurd(or I am totally missing your intent here).
NEW	DTB	No, I probably expressed myself wrongly. See above.

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


<< DTB As I said, that which transcends Lower Manas is
the Higher: Buddhi-manas. And according to Theosophy the
"worldview" is always in its grasp.>>

JERRY: She also says that buddhi manas is the intuition.
It has been my experience that different people have
different intuitive experiences, and that great minds
do not always think alike. Besides, we do not communicate
via buddhi-manas so much as manas itself using words
and language, and we must interpret our buddhi-manas
experiences in order to communicate them, and such
interpretations are always couched in our culture
and society and education etc etc. Thus I can tell you
that atma-buddhi is unreal and you can assure me that
it is real and permanent/unchanging etc. In a sense,
it is both, but we apparent come at it from different
sides.

NEW	DTB	EXACTLY

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

<< DTB I would say that most exalted beings [ the
"Wise"] try to convey their experience to their disciples and
humanity. But often language and the common mind-set of people
make it difficult for them to see what the "Wise" have viewed,
and attempt to explain.>>

JERRY: OK, but we are not in the classic guru-chela
relationship here, and unfortunately our karmic baggage
tends to get in the way of our mutual understanding.
We even interpret Blavatsky a bit differently.

NEW	DTB	INEVITABLY What we are trying to do is to understand
each-other.
I think that is valuable.

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

WISDOM is supposed to be universal and without any proprietors.
It is said to be innate in us (in the MONAD) [ I just posted
something on this in S.D. Basic on http://www.blavatsky.net ]>>

JERRY: I think that our spiritual experiences tend to be
very similar in nature. But when human brain-consciousness
returns we have to clothe those experiences in words, and
the words that we chose tend to be personal to us, and so
we describe similar experiences in very different words.

NEW DTB	EXACTLY
========================================


<<But no amount of words or analogies will ever substitute for
the THING IN
ITSELF. >>

JERRY: Agreed they don't substitute for it, but they are
necessary to describe a THING IN ITSELF to another person.


<<And there everything
becomes a matter of self-consideration, rejection or use.>>

JERRY: I agree that we each can (and do) reject or accept
the words of others.


<<As far as I can "see" SOMETHING cannot visualize or speak
accurately of NOTHING or even of NO-THING. >>

JERRY: We can certainly speak about it, but I don't
think it possible to experience nothingness. Even
deep dreamless sleep is a something.

NEW	DTB	YES
==================================


<< If you can think or
"see" the you cannot non-esse yourself.>>

JERRY: I am not trying to non-esse myself. But I am
trying to tell you that this "I" we think we have is
not what it appears. The self has no inherent existence,
by which I mean Tzongkapa's definition - that nothing
which depends for its existence on something else
can have true inherent existence. Our "I" is a
dependent arising - its existence depends on other
factors and it changes over time and thus has
conventional reality but no ultimate reality.

NEW	DTB	Again, I do not think we "own" the mind, even if it is
one of OUR tools. When we use it to direct the lower
instruments, it becomes for that time the active agent of the
SELF. A also agree that the SELF is not material, but on its
own plane it has a CONTINUED (and a continuing) EXISTENCE.

The embodied Ahankara ("I") is a self-centered and usually
physical body-based, isolated sense of selfish identity, unless I
am much mistaken. Yet when we try to speak in terms of the
Buddhi-Manas we impose o it some of the higher attributes and
qualities that relate to the spiritual-Manas. In other words,
Lower Manas has inherent in it an aspect that relates to the
spiritual. I may be splitting definitions and ideas here, but I
see no other way of expressing the method whereby our lower-Manas
can discuss Theosophy or transcendence.


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

<< DTB I am familiar with the concept. Is it not
because we really are dealing with 7 planes of consciousness in
which and of which the highest is the ATMA ? >>

JERRY: My thinking here is that ALL 7 planes are part
of maya, and that only those things outside of the whole
7-plane solar system have permanence. The Hindu's see
atma as real and permanent, while the Buddhists see
it as impermanent and illusive. I tend to let the
whole 7-plane solar system be considered as maya with
the upper three planes nirvana and the lower four
samsara, and in that view atma is nirvanic and
impermanent.
=========================

NEW DTB	It Atma is a "ray" of the one Spirit, then I agree that
the lower 6 principles are subordinate and operate as its
vehicles. But the SPIRIT in each of us, appears to me to be
"permanent" even if in contrast with the others.	I am concerned
with the ideas and not whether Buddhism or Hinduism has phrases
or concepts that are similar. I am of the opinion that the
expressions of either of those schools has passed through so many
hands in translation that the original clarity has dimmed.

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


<< How can the ONE SELF see itself unless it devises "mirrors?"
>>

JERRY: Unclear here what is "ONE SELF?" Do you mean
atma? Atma is not an individual selfhood but rather
a collective consciousness. The Monad is NOT a Self
at all, so I don't know what you mean here.

NEW	DTB	The ONE SELF would be the UNIVERSAL MIND or the SOUL OF
THE UNIVERSE. In manifestation: ATMAN. Out of manifestation:
PARAMATMA. or THE ABSOLUTE.
The MONAD is defined as a "Life-unit" an indissoluble compound in
manifestation of SPIRIT/MATTER (S.D. I 174-5fn) As a unit it is
a "Self." But the innumerable MONADS which entirely pervade all
manifestation are said to be parts of, or derived from, the
UNIVERSAL MONAD (which as I understand it) marks the
re-manifestation of the Universe. (Of course I may have got the
terms twisted, but I hope you get my drift.
====================================

that "Manifestation" exists?>>

JERRY: Manifestation exists for the pleasure and fun
of the Monad, which uses it to self-express much the
same way an artist uses a painting to self-express
or a musician an instrument. The Monad is already
perfect and whole and complete and does not need
to progress anywhere.

NEW DTB	I do not think that the fun and enjoyment are the
highest good. They only express the passage of time in terms of
passion and desire objectives. I do not perceive and wisdom or
knowledge therein. Personally I enjoy seeking to discover and
follow the many progressions of nature.

You are right the MONAD does not need to do anything. But since
the support of manifestation and the progress of the
mind-humanity requires assistance, some of the MONADS voluntarily
serve as friends and guides. In the VOICE OF THE SILENCE the
final question asked of the Bodhisattva who is about to become a
BUDDHA covers this matter.

As I see it, it is the difference between the selfishness of a
Pratyekha Buddha and of Gautama Buddha.

in not for this
that in order to "know MYSELF, I have to know the reflections
that represent it at the various levels of life.>>

JERRY: The Monad has no need for self knowledge. We do.
The business of know-thyself is for us humans.

NW	DTB	Agreed. But: WHY ?
====================================


============================
<< DTB The UNIVERSAL MONAD is of course PRESENCE -- or
as I might say quoting the S.D. "ABSOLUTENESS." >>

JERRY: My own take here is that no one, including you
and certainly me, has a clue what such terminology means.
Is the capitalization supposed to mean anything?
There is no "universal monad" anywhere within this
space-time continuum. If you want to find it, you have
to look elsewhere.

-----------------------------------------
NEW DTB	Capitalization is only because I feel the words deserve
emphasis -- so hopefully my meaning is made clearer.
Can you prove there is no UNIVERSAL MONAD anywhere. And I was
not limiting myself in anything I have said solely to this
material and physical space-time continuum.
=====================================


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

<< Dtb In general agreed, though in TRANSACTIONS (I
already referred to -- pp. 66 - 76) H.P.B. gives a far more
detailed report on the interplay between the Higher Manas and the
ATMA-BUDDHIC Self. Have you had an opportunity to re-read these
? (BCW, VOL. 10 pp. 252 - 263)>>

JERRY: Have done so. I am not saying anything contrary
to what she says there. But perhaps we interpret differently?

NEW	DTB	possibly that's the difference

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

<< DTB Well then I miss my understanding of what H.P.B.
has offered us from the beginning. It may not be a formal
"school" but the teachings it endorses and the research it
encourages are in the nature of an educational experience.>>

JERRY: OK. Its not a formal school, but perhaps an
informal one.

<<The organization of the TS has undergone, historically, a
number of
changes; and any one who reads the chronological and magazine
literature is
able to piece together those changes.>>

JERRY: Agreed.

<<Apparently it was never intended to be monolithic or
dictatorial.>>

JERRY: I don't think it ever had been.


<<I like to use what H.P.B. wrote in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY as a
guide to understanding the purpose of the T.S.
Using other concepts, and those developed after her death, seem
to stray from that primary basis, but then, again this is a
matter of opinion. "The TALKING IMAGE OF URUR" seems to be a
good basis for looking at the T.S. as it was originally
formulated and directed in those prime growing times.>>

JERRY: OK. Yea!!! We ended on an agreement for a change.

Jerry S.


Thanks Jerry -- this has been very useful and helpful to me

DAL

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


e 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