Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00156)

Some more comments inserted below

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:59 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Responses to Dallas

DALLAS: As to our curious duality In S.D. ii 167-8 HPB depicts
two MONADS
resident in each human. This is strange. But apparently (as
further
explained in TRANSACTIONS (pp. 66-77) the perfected Monad
volunteers to
enter and assist the evolving MONAD. It is not forced to do this
but it
volunteers for the task. Presumable one might say that this is a
method of
expiating ones old karma and balancing it. But it also has the
inspirational side of giving assistance on demand to an aspiring
brother.

JERRY: SD II p 167 contains the crytic note that "The Monads are
not
discrete principles, limited or conditioned, but rays from that
one
universal absolute Principle." Now, aside from her continual
misleading use

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

DTB	WHY WOULD H.P.B. WANT TO MISLEAD ANYONE ? SHE WAS TRYING TO
CONVEY THE WISDOM OF THE MASTERS -- DID THEY CORRECT HER ? NO.
On the contrary they gave Dr. Hubbe Schleiden a certificate of
co-authorship. PATH Vol. 8, p. 1-3

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

of the term absolute, she clearly says on this page that only
Divinity alias
Principle is the real and permanent Source.

Even the Divine Monad is a "ray." This logically has to be the
case if you think it over. One of the
inherent attributes of Divinity is self-manifestation (a very old
idea,
taught in ancient Egypt). This attribute passes to its ray, which
is also
self-manifesting, and so with its ray and its ray and so on. All
of this
logically follows from the initial assumption of a
Self-manifesting Divinity
(not a God in any personal sense). Thus all monads are rays, and
as such are
impermanent (albeit relatively permanent to us) expressions -
i.e., they are
aggregates, possibly monadic aggregates but aggregates
nonetheless.

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

DTB	I FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE IDEA OF A "RAY" -- IT IS ONE
WITH ITS SOURCE.

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


She also makes another crytic statement on this page: "It is not
in the
course of natural law that man should become a perfect septenary
being,
before the seventh race in the seventh Round. Yet he has all
these
principles latent in him from his birth." The idea expressed here
is
identical to that taught in Kundalini Yoga where the goddess
Kundalini is
said to lie sleeping in the muladhara chakra - this goddess
being the
personification of evolutionary energy and her sleeping
symbolizing its
latent condition in everyone. Kundalini Yoga, as with all yogas,
is a
technique used to awaken this evolutionary force, become
conscious of it,
and use it and control it. The objective? To become a 5th, 6th or
even 7th
Rounder here in the 4th Round.

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

DTB	NO OBJECTION. BUT, WHO RULES AND DIRECTS KUNDALINI?
What has this information to do with living a spiritual life
here and now?

The level one might obtain, as did the Buddha, did not deter Him
from continuing to serve and teach mankind.

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


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

DALLAS: If Cosmos and chaos are equal and opposite then something
which is
unmoved, and possibly intermediary is able to view and assess
both. What
shall we call it? The MIND ?

JERRY: Yes, the observer who looks out and sees duality is the
mind or
manas. The nature of the mind is pure and clear and has both
intensity and
clarity. But our own ignorance

DTB	HOW DOES THAT OCCUR? WHO ENGENDERS THE RIPPLES?


causes ripples to appear on its otherwise
calm surface. These ripples soon take the form of images and then
ideas and
then thoughts, not to mention sounds. Thus the perfect miirror of
the mind
becomes clouded over with the dust of thoughts and we posit a
Self and a
Not-Self, and then we define them and we re-define them ad
infinitum.

DTB	"Not-Self" being KAMA " principle" ?


Enlightenment is result of the Path of clearing away these
distortions and
letting the mind rest in its naked purity. I believe that this is
what
Blavatsky really meant when she posited a kama-manas and a
buddhi-manas.
Anyway, reality is nondualistic. Dualism is seeing chaos and/or
order,
existence and/or non-existence, permanence and/or annihilation,
etc.

Nondualism is a view in which these extreme positions disappear -
a middle
way view.

DTB	YET We DEAL WITH PLURALISMS OF MANY KINDS ALL THE TIME, to
me this indicates that the MONISM of the SELF is the ruler
regardless of the planes of CONSCIOUSNESS through which it
functions.


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

DALLAS: CHANGELESS could only be as a BACKGROUND -- we can't
define IT. Yet
we might agree logically that everything (moveable) comes out (or
radiates,
or emanates) from something (or is it NO-THING ) -- the great
unknown but
necessary base.

JERRY: Because we see change all around us, and we think that
this is
reality,

DTB	NO. REALITY WOULD BE THE CHANGELESS BASE -- THAT which sees
the changes and notes them How does the ever-changing achieve
stability and one-pointedness? How can it be helped?
I agree. If we perceive polarity, then the contrast is a normal
expectation. However there has also to be a recording mechanism
where the experiences as memories are stored for future
comparison. At lease that is my conclusion. Dualism forces the
triad to manifest. In fact the triadic condition is eternal. (My
conclusion)

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

we posit a changelessness and insist that it must also exist,
somewhere. Because we see matter, we posit the existence of
spirit. This is
how manas works. We have suffering and pain in life, and so we
posit a
pleasant devachan as compensation in death. Background and
foreground are
just one more set of dualities, my friend, and you can't have one
without
the other.

DTB	AGREED


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

DALLAS: not magic unless you mean in the old sense WISDOM. In
any case it is not mine it is only what I get out of THEOSOPHY. .

JERRY: Magic is defined as making conscious changes in accordance
with the
will.

DTB	ISIS UNVEILED SAYS IT IS WISDOM.


We are, in fact, all magicians, and we all work magic every day,
but
we do it so frequently that it seems mundane and so we forget
that we are
magical beings. Dallas, you are a magician, whether you don a
cloak and make
a circle or not. Psychology tells us that we all perform daily
rituals also,
but we call them by other names and disclaim we are magicians.
According to
Jung, what our fathers called spirits, we now call microbes and
viruses.
Only the names have changed.

DTB	AGREED as to change in names. Functions are not entirely
material.



DALLAS: As to "astral travel" to me that implies returning from
such a
voyage wit a memory of what one has perceived "there." But if
the material
of my brain has not been affected, or if I am unable to
distinguish from a
perceived experience or allegory the true meaning, I have gained
nothing.

JERRY: Exactly. The only difference between you and a
self-proclaimed
magician is that the magician remembers the experience, while you
forget it.
This is pretty much the distinction between a normal person and a
buddha as
well. Astral traveling is an experience that both humans and
animals share,
but few remember, and also few can consciously control the
experience. The
Path is one of memory and control. Astral traveling itself is an
automatic
experience that everyone already does.

DTB	PROBABLY TRUE. BUT, as usual I query the motive for such
things.




DALLAS: That's why I am not keen on "astral travel" so-called.
First one
must acquire full control over the faculties we use here when
awake, then
presumably we gradually acquire knowledge of and eventually the
ability to
use ones SINGULAR CONSCIOUSNESS to pass in and through other
levels. But,
to me the question arises as to my motive. Why would I aspire to
do this?
What value other than excitement and curiosity (on the Kamic
level) would I
receive?

JERRY: The motive should be to gain Knowledge with which one uses
to help
others. Without such direct experiences, how can you tell
non-Theosophists
about the cosmic planes? You will be the blind leading the blind,
and both
could well fall into a dark ditch. When I visit the planes and
subplanes, I
can understand by my own direct experience what Blavatsky is
talking about.
Otherwise, its all just words and conceptualizations. Why do you
think that
"excitement and curiosity (on the Kamic level)" have anything at
all to do
with it? If that is indeed your motive, then you should indeed
refrain. But
I would sugest to you that simply getting yourself a more
altruistic motive
would be a better choice.

DTB WHEN THE TIME TO LEARN SUCH THINGS ARISES AS A NECESSITY I
WOULD HAVE AT LEAST A THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE. I hear of others
who have had to struggle out of the Kama/astral plane and
actually do will-battle with some of the entities that try to
restrain them there. So there are some who recognize the
seriousness of the situation and then "escape from it."

I say why adventure unless there is a specific duty that requires
us to do that? Of course each one answers to themselves these
points. I only know they have to be considered.

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


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

DALLAS: I cannot imagine that is pleasant as a spiritually wise
being to be
forced t watch the horrors and erroneous choice made by a pupil
one is
tutoring. To sacrifice Nirvana is probably the last temptation
offered to
the aspirant for true WISDOM. At least I think that is what
the VOICE OF
THE SILENCE speaks of in the last three pages of the book.

JERRY: From the viewpoint of a novice or "chela" I suppose that
you are
right here.

DTB	GRADES ARE UNIMPORTANT, we cannot decide the "level" of
another, but we can discuss the processes and the tools and the
requirements for a "job" before doing it.

But the Vow of the Bodhisattva is never to be taken in "horror"
but rather in joy. There is no sacrifice - and as long as one
thinks that
there is then just so long should the Vow be delayed. No, the Vow
is given
freely and with great joyousness.

Sacrifice is a concept that is based on false premises. By the
time the Vow is taken, the person no longer grasps onto a
personal self anyway. The concept of making a sacrifice is based
on
the false grasping onto a personal self. So, when the Vow is
finally taken, and one starts the Path of the
Bodhisattva, there is no sacrifice nor is there any temptation.
Both of these false concepts will have already been abandoned.

DTB	THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE says it quite differently. So I
guess Mahayana has a different technique and suggests a different
set of motives. THE TWO PATHS seems to make this clear to me,
and the last 4 pages of the VOICE are even clearer.

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


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

DALLAS: Somehow the concept one forms of the MIND cannot be in
physical
terms alone -- as to the limitations of color, sound, etc... The
MIND as I
see it is the interpreter of impressions received, it the relates
those to
memory (and I mean not the superficial memory, but rather the
deeper layers)
It also serves to link the ephemeral impressions of our present
with the
more spiritual and altruistic side of nature as to the MONAD
resident
interiorly.

JERRY: Just so. The colors and sounds of the mind relate to those
very
"impressions received." These impressions are misunderstood by
the mind to
be real. In fact, modern psychology has demonstrated very clearly
that the
mind is absolutely unable to tell the difference between actual
physical
events and corresponding mental impressions. Our mind makes no
distinction
between external events and internal events, thinking them both
to be real.
This is how manas functions. The materialist thinks that external
phenomena
are real and internal phenomena are unreal. The Buddhist
Mind-Only School
thinks that external phenomena are unreal while only internal
phenomena are
real. The human mind makes no distinction and sees both as real.
The buddha
also makes no distinction and sees both as unreal. And around it
goes...

DTB	I AGREE WITH THE LAST CONCEPT



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

DALLAS: I would say that the ONE UNIVERSAL MONAD is ATMA. But
when
manifestation takes place you have duality (ATMA/BUDDHI) limited
by
ALTRUISTIC EXPERIENCE -- MEMORY -- MIND These, in evolution form
a superior
TRIAD ( see S.D. I 200) This immutable triad presides over all
the
experiences in the 7 inferior GLOBES depicted in that diagram.
This
THREE-IN-ONE appears to the embodied mind as a "monad."

JERRY: I would have to disagree profoundly. Atma is our basic
sense of
selfhood, and can't be Blavatsky's universal monad but rather its
ray. How
can you hope to resolve Buddhism and Theosophy but claiming atma
as real?

DTB	I AM NOT TRYING TO RECONCILE BUDDHISM (or at least one of
its Schools) with Theosophy. I am considering the ideas only
regardless of nomenclature -- concepts that can be seen, used,
applied from any standpoint, and not merely material or lower
Manasic.


Resolution can only come through seeing atma as a ray, and in
this way the
anatma doctrine of Buddhism can be seen as true.

DTB	IF ATMA IS UNIVERSAL then "anatma" is only a concept. It is
that aspect of ATMA which for a time agrees to place itself at
the "other pole." It might be called PRIMORDIAL MATTER or
MAHA-BUDDHI -- the vehicle of ATMA.

But to me it is still unimportant as to the names used or the
positions assigned. Our main objective is to try and make all
this metaphysical material (?) practical. How do we use this in
daily life? How do we employ it to frame ideals, motives,
progress ?

=================================
I agree that atma-buddhi-manas presides over the lower 7 Globes.
I have no problem with
that. However, what about the upper 5 Globes? The upper three
planes
comprise spirituality, and there is no buddhi or manas there.

DTB	I HAVE NOT FOUND THAT DEFINITION USED EITHER IN THE S.D. OR
IN MAHATMA LETTERS.
I do not say that there are no 5 "upper globes" I say if they
exist then what are they for? How do they fit into the scheme
displayed in the S.D. ?

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


DALLAS: Using the eye of the mind I can perceive ideas, and
detect the
difference between the universal and impersonal ones and those
which are
earth and matter-bound. The former are impersonal and universal
and seem to
take the position of impersonal laws and universal experience.
The latter
are usually selfish, and bound by the considerations of a
pleasant isolation
-- and both these are not possible. The former are brotherly and
the latter
are argumentative and present some favored view-point.

JERRY: Using the mind is why we are all only in the 4th Round
right now.

Perception of different ideas is a tricky business because of
what is called
self-fulfilling prophecy - we tend to observe what we thought we
would find.
Mental observations almost always agree with our
already-established
worldview.

DTB	HOW CAN ANYONE THINK OF SOMETHING WITHOUT FOUNDATION? If we
think we have to base it on memory and experience. Otherwise it
is fancy. To establish Fancy as reality, we need a view such as
THEOSOPHY provides. It takes us deeper (not outside) into our
already existing Nature-planes -- at least I think so.



Only once in great while do we experience something outside of
our worldview, and then a significant emotional event will occur.
Your
ability to distinquish personal from impersonal and local from
universal is
a direct result of your inherent dualistic brain-mind, or the
gross mind of
Buddhism. The notion of "selfish" is a label that you place on
certain of
your observations, in a comparative effort with "brotherly" which
is but
another label. The mind loves to label things like that. But you
mislead
yourself if you take such labels are having some kind of external
reality.

DTB	PERHAPS YOU ARE RIGHT. I don't consciously adhere to
"labels" but I try to find equivalence and contrast which take
together enable me as the 3rd factor to make determinations and
to progress along lines I choose. There is of course a lot of
Self-determination there, and some of it may be self-delusive,
but as long as I am able to say this to myself and act
cautiously, neither my own SELF-CENTER nor the ENVIRONMENT are
distorted or made to suffer for my attitude and research. I try
to reconcile differences of view and not to force any alteration.
I hold that superior to any duality there is always a SOURCE
which engenders them. I try to identify and seek the CAUSE for
that SOURCE.

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

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

DALLAS: I can understand the troubling nature of the two points
of view. I
could understand "nothingness" in terms of the way any
"manifested consciousness" might view the vast period of
MAHAPRALAYA when "consciousness" 'sleeps.'

JERRY: Nothingness is a human concept that does not exist as any
kind of
reality. So is permanence or absoluteness. These are dualistic
concepts, not
realities. Reality is found in between such extreme concepts. We
conceive of
such a thing as nothingness when we wake from dreamless sleep and
falsely
conclude that we were temporarily annihilated. Manas usually
equates
nothingness with formlessness but this equation doesn't hold.


DTB	I THINK I AGREE TO THIS, however, I would say that
"nothingness" on any plane does not mean "NOTHINGNESS" on ALL
PLANES. From plane to plane there are distinctions. Do you
think that is why it is said that evolution to the true is a
succession of progressive awakenings ?

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

DALLAS: However the reawakening of the Universe shows me (if
correct) that
there is a superior spiritual consciousness which persists and
for which
"nothingness" is only a cycle of time in its perception of
infinitude and
eternity -- whatever that may mean. I am still talking in terms
of finitudes
and that is of course incorrect.

JERRY: I agree that there is "a superior spiritual consciousness"
that
outlasts even the longest pralaya. Manvantara and pralaya are
simply the
birth/life and death of a planetary chain, and as above so below.

DTB	That is where (mentally) I try to start from, regardless of
nomenclature

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

DALLAS: Large sections of agreement here as our tow views get
adjusted -- or
rather, I adjust to your views and expressions

JERRY: I throw around a lot of Buddhist terminolgy, I agree. But
I do so
largely to compare and contrast with Theosophical terminology,
which I think
are so misleading that sometimes Theosophists get confused, and I
know that
many new members get discouraged and quit just over the
terminology.

DTB	I AGREE that in any deep study one has to use some kind of
terminology (as a short-hand). Confusion results from lack of
"one-pointedness". Patanjali calls it EKAGRATA, and suggests it
be used t discipline the mind and focus it. He recommends the
assemblage of ones knowledge and then a universalizing of it, by
asking how and why this may be in relation to the environment,
both visible and invisible (as to sensory input and output)
i.e.: another plane of perception.


Call me a dreamer and an idealist, but I can see how Theosophy
and Buddhism can be
resolved in large measure simply by looking at the definitions
of the words
used. So a lot of my dialog has to do with the 2nd Objective and
may not
specifically be directed at you or anyone in particular.
Hopefully you can
see what I am trying to do. One glaring example is our
disagreement over the
definition of atma. You are using the Hindu interpretation and I
the
Buddhist. I believe that Blavatsky's writings can be interpreted
either way
but I personally prefer the Buddhist interpretation.

DTB	I was not aware I had adopted the Hindu vs. the Buddhist
views. That is/was not my objective. As I see it theosophy is
the source of both Hinduism (I mean the GHUYA (secret) WISDOM,
which is sect-less.


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

DALLAS: NOTHINGNESS Agreed this is the reverse of a plenum
as we
understand it in manifestation. However if one looks at the S.D.
I pp. 27-9
one notices that even in the NOTHINGNESS of Pralaya it is posited
that there
are INTELLIGENCES for whom Pralaya is no barrier to their
conscious
continuity. I don't view this as an impossibility since eternity
and
immortality and limitlessness never imply an absolute and
complete
NOTHINGNESS. In fact I would say that they can never be
completely NOTHING
or EVERYTHING. Looking at the S.D. I think this is well covered
in S.D. I
342-3, 289, 296, 587 AND 635. In other words while to our
physical senses
SPACE may appear VOID, in reality the same
"space" is full of living bodies active in another state of
matter (or plane
of being).

JERRY: I have already said that I believe Nothingness to be a
non-existent
concept. Formless experience always appears to be a nothingness
to the
form-oriented mind. You seem to be agreeing with me here.

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

DALLAS: To me there is no cessation of being because one passes
into another
plane. The UNITY of SPIRITUAL SELFHOOD forever remains, even if
it cannot
be proved objectively on this plane. But, I think our own
existence and the
fact that we can discuss these subjects shows it is not destroyed
when the
physical vehicle disappears,


Best wishes,


Dallas

JERRY: Yes, we will always be conscious of something, even if
only of a
formless peace. But our sense of identity will change, and our
sense of
environment will change. I am not sure what you mean by
"spiritual selfhood"
but this sounds much like what the pretyekabuddha desires to
find. I have
found that the notion of a separate self is abandoned when my
consciousness
rises into the spiritual planes.

DTB	As I understand it the PRATYEKHA-BUDDHA is focused in
desire. He wants Spiritual Desire to reign exclusively for
himself -- when he chooses that SAMBHOGAKAYA vesture he
discontinues his contact with the Earth and its sorrowful and
woe-producing nature. I ask myself, if this is only a supremacy
of KAMA then what about MANAS, BUDDHI and ATMA. How does one
separate himself (and for how long) from the general Karma of
mankind and our particular Earth? We live in a vast Universe
where our thinking is only an infinitesimal small part of the
WHOLE. We are more inclined tom think selfishly than
universally. How do we begin to widen out to that UNIVERSAL ?

How does one become an ATMAGNYANI? What are the duties and
responsibilities thereof ?

Best wishes,

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