Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00158)

Saturday, April 28, 2001

Thanks Jerry:


AGAIN NOTES ADDED BELOW


DTB

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 7:28 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Further Responses to Dallas Part 2

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

OLD DTB: The contrary is also true, if we can perceive them, then
we have
proved the illusory nature of our present limitations.

OLD JERRY: The illusory nature of our present surroundings is
already pretty
obvious to most of us.

NEW DTB YES to those who think. But then to notice the
changes there is
something that is stable -- or else a CHANGE noticing other
changes has no
basis for accurate comparisons.


One wonders why this contrast has been established. Is it to
emphasize
CAUSE and effect ? This to me drives me back to say: "Why is
there
anything? Why do we have to live through life a prey to sadness
and joy?"
Am I subject or King, or a bit of both? In any case my existence
is
something I have to discover.

NEW JERRY: You are exactly right when you say that "a CHANGE
noticing other
changes has no basis for accurate comparisons" and this is why we
fall into
karma and error about what is really going on - our comparisons
are all in
error because they are all based on false assumptions. "Why is
there
anything?" is a very good question, and one that I ask all the
time, but so
far I have found no satisfactory answer. Even after we tread the
Path to
determine for ourselves WHAT is going on, we still won't know
WHY.


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

OLD DTB: Something of the nature of similarity or of permanency
has made the
observation. I would like to know what that is.

OLD JERRY: There is nothing permanent there. Anything making
observations is
a temporary illusion, because its existence depends on making
observations.
Without any observations, what can we say about an observer?

NEW DTB One has to take the quality of the AKASA into
account as a
recorder of everything -- the memories we lose are still of
record there.
But perhaps you think they are
eventually effaced, whereas as I read the teachings they are
eternally
present as the continuing base for all Karma, individual and
Universal.



NEW JERRY: I am very suspect of "records" and I don't much care
who does the
recording. Every event is fraught with subjective
interpretations. Thus even
IF there is an akasa and even IF it faithfully records everything
(which I
can't believe) then it still will come down to me observing and
interpreting
what I observe there. Whether I interpret an observed event in
this physical
world or I interpret an observed event in the akasa, it all comes
down to my
own interpretation of my observation, doesn't it?

DTB AGREED HOW TO SECURE A PERFECT RECORD,
uninfluenced by opinion is for us (in/on this Plane) difficult.
But if one considers the attributes of BUDDHI, then Akasa seems
to be the closest to that immutable and un-opinionated record --
at least seems to me to be fair as described.

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

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

OLD DTB: 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.>>

OLD JERRY: Harmony and discord are two faces of the same thing.
You can't
have one without the other. Non-duality is a transcendence of
both sides,
not of one at the expense of the other.

NEW DTB AGREED. But, it still takes a NEUTRAL position
to detect
the difference between the two and to seek for their cause and
that UNITY which has placed
them in juxtaposition during manvantara. Is this neutral point
not the Mind
or that aspect of the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS which is active on any
selected plane of perception and
action?

NEW JERRY: I don't know anything at all about a "neutral
position." The
human mind (alias manas) functions under duality, and non-duality
is a
transcendence of the human mind, or an altered state of
consciousness.

DTB NO I mean an IMPARTIAL MIND -- a Mind forced by
the INNER RULER to record accurately -- and that requires a great
deal of discipline and a totally honest position.

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

If this is your "neutral position" then OK, but no one can come
to grips with
duality while functioning within manas. The manas can, indeed,
detect the
difference between two sides of a duality. It is not so hard, for
example,
to understand that up and down are relative terms. What is up for
me, for
example, is down for someone in China who is on the other side of
the world.
But this relativity is not so easy to mentally comprehend when we
look at,
say existence and non-existence.

DTB HOW WOULD ONE ENTER A plane different from ours?
How would one adjust to a new configuration of "matter?" I do
not know except for one thing.

I am still the UNITARY PERCEIVER. I AM A POINT OF CONSCIOUSNESS,
and all sensory input becomes memory -- which I may seek to
interpret if the memory persists (as in dreams or trances) AND
BRINGS IT ON TO THIS PLANE.

I cannot assume this plane is the only plane that is real. I
must assume that the LAWS of this universe are honest and persist
on this, as on other planes.

I also assume that the relationship between other planes of
perception and action, and this one, is an ancient arrangement
and there are agreements as to relationship.

Then there is the question of necessity. At what point is it
necessary for me to be able to cross the "abyss" (if any) between
planes? If I can perceive a need to do this, then it becomes a
duty to learn more about the transition.

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



OLD 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..

OLD JERRY: I agree that this is what happens, but what you
explain here is
also the very cause of our delusional existence as well as of our
karma.
Atma coming to define itself and its not-self is what the Arc of
Descent is
all about.

NEW DTB The "arc of Descent" as I see it, is the
plunging of Spirit
into matter and an ever increasing individualization manifests in
its
perceptive consciousness which is restricted to perceptions on
that plane
during that process. As I understand it, it is done on a
voluntary basis by
those SPIRITUAL BEINGS who agree to assist Nature in her work of
assisting
the development of beings in that condition, as they develop for
themselves
a still more individualized consciousness, attain the stage of
Mind-mankind,
and these successful graduates do this because they elect to make
their knowledge available out of a
charitable, and brotherly impulse to help all Beings rise to the
level they
have attained of being independent and self-willed fully
SPIRITUAL BEINGS.
The transformation is in the consciousness of the forms (built
by and from
karma) used by the "Monads of lesser experience." - as I see it
they tend
to become individualized and recognize the SPIRITUAL SELF and its
PLANE OF
LIFE. We belong to this category and our present thought and
questioning,
is part of the testing that has to be undertaking. (At least
that is my
speculation.) The material we use (Monads of lesser experience)
is also
raised to a higher degree of conscious individualization.
Personally I
prefer this as a proposal and line of future work to the concept
of
retirement for some indefinite period to a "blissful" repose far
away from
the sorrows, pains and trammels of the world at large and my
companions in
particular.

NEW JERRY: This is a bit different than the way I see. I see
spirit and
matter as two sides of the same thing, that thing being external
substance,
and this the descent is one of formless spirit taking on material
forms. But
the "plunging" itself is done, not by spirit, but rather by our
own minds -
i.e., atma-buddhi-manas. Spirit and matter are the substance of
what we
would call our Not-Self, or Not-I, which is to say anything that
is not
covered in our sense of identity.

DTB IF We VIEW OURSELVES AS THE CENTER OF a Universe
in which we share experience as well as materials -- the constant
exchange of life-atoms -- then we SHARE "space" and are NOT
separate from anything visible or invisible -- our powers
presently focused in our material selves are really seen as
truncated, whereas they are EXTENSIVE and universal. I think
this is why the concept of the UNIVERSAL MAN is evoked. But this
sounds almost too material.
================================

Whenever and however we identify ourselves, what is left over
from that identification is the Not-Self
(prakriti), and it is just that which is spirit/matter. Also, I
don't
understand your concept of "testing" nor do I recall reading that
anywhere
in Blavatsky although she might have said such a thing as a
possible way of
looking at things.

DTB TESTING is a word that means probing for deeper
understanding to me. I am convinced that our position in the
Universe is not terribly important except to us. However our
being here and being able to THINK implies we have wide and deep
responsibilities. How can we be sure of these ideas unless we
try (mentally) to test them out ?

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

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

OLD DTB: The only other statement that bears possibly on this is
the one
that states nothing 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.

OLD JERRY: There are manvantaras and there are manvantaras. There
are
pralayas and then there are pralayas. The akasa carries over
karmic imprints
from the pralaya of the lower four cosmic planes, but certainly
not for a
mahapralaya when the whole 7-plane system goes.

NEW DTB I can't speculate about the remote possibility of what
happens at
(or after) a Maha-pralaya. But, I first ask myself: "If Nature
has gone to
this effort in producing and supporting us and the rest of
evolution, then
why undo everything with a whimsical sweep of an incredible
carelessness?


-- There indeed would be the operation of an anthropomorphic
God -- who is
careless of his charges.) Considering that Nature (Universe)
works
economically, except for the extra time employed, why should it
be any
different from a Pralaya (or, come to think of it, DEVACHAN, of
which we
have no conscious recollection -- and we usually have no
conscious memory of
name and form and personal experiences in our previous life) What
happens to
the BUDDHAS, the DHYAN CHOHANS, why would the individual MONAD
at the core
of our Being (a unit of SPIRIT/MATTER) be wiped out? Why all the
work for
nothing?



NEW JERRY: You keep wanting to dissociate human beings from
Nature, and I
agree that on the surface of things these do seem to be two quite
distinct
things. However, there is no external entity called Nature. What
we call
Nature is simply the psychic projection of our own agreed-to
rules for how
this game is to be played out. Your question of "Why all the
work for
nothing?" was fully addressed in a series of postings on life as
a game and
I don't want to repeat myself here. This is a pure manas
question, for which
there is no answer that manas would accept.

DTB But, to me, I do NOT dissociate myself (or ay
human being) from NATURE (using that word to imply all that
exists and lives, near and far, on this plane or on any other,
from highest to lowest) UNIVERSE and UNIVERSAL covers it for me.
The plane or state where MIND is developed and the separation of
the Lower from the Higher Manas is one through which every being
ultimately goes. It is no novelty except to us who are now
experiencing it and its thousands of detours. It is living Karma
guided by motive.-- and motive is the Universal difference
between good and evil or virtue and vice. -- "right livelihood.,"
and evil doing.

Nor do I perceive our living to be a "game" though the Hindus in
one sense, considering it as an 'art" speak of the "dance of the
Universe" (Tandava Lakshanam) and of the living in it a "leela"
or rhythmic dance. These are symbolic ideas -- time, space and
motion being harmonized.

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

OLD JERRY Where is akasa that it can carry over anything from
one
7-plane solar system
to another? And why does it need to? I don't see any need for
such a thing.

NEW DTB The question of TIME is indeed an illusion -- I
answer WHY
NOT ? Why should the Karmic bonds be truncated by our concepts of
time and
duration? It also faces the question: Why all this effort if it
is to be
disposed of, apparently frivolously and whimsically?. I
certainly don't
feel I am wasting my time, and I am sure you are not either. I
am sure
there are cycles within cycles and our mental perception of their
duration
has nothing to do with their actual reality. Why should any
7-plane or 10
plane system be wiped out after aeons of effort and progress?
That to me
makes little sense. I can understand that our embodied minds
loose any
concept of reality in view of our short term existence and
experience in
THIS LIFE. Also this embodied mind watches the running down of
the body and
other functions dependent on the body. It probably knows it will
not be
reincarnated fully, but only the higher aspects of its
life and work have any hold over immortality and eternity -- so,
at the end
of a Maha-Manvantara why not assume a similar continuity?

NEW JERRY: Dallas, any kind of records, whether karmic or written
on paper,
logically have to be read or observed by a subjective observer
and then
interpreted.

DTB EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION ENTERS THE
CONTEMPLATIVE and SUBJECTIVE plane

Our so called OBJECTIVITY is entirely a matter of memory.

The present EXPERIENCE is a most infinitely small division of
time as we pass from our PAST into our FUTURE. We always
remember the PRESENT. In applying the power of MOTIVE we may
view a range of possible "futures" but our selection of any one,
and actions performed as a result of selection (mental,
emotional, vital and physical) bring into being situations to
which KARMA is attached. We can never escape the MORAL
consequences of our choices.

The use of the word "subjective" in (modern) psychology (is used
as a kind of a short-cut), But I think it has not been analyzed
as to its source and function. We assign "objective" to tangible
things impressions and events -- the "Gnyan indriyas" or powers
of perception (again limited to 5 on this plane). The "Karma
indriyas," or powers to act are again 5.

But the MIND which controls and interprets both is
non-material -- shall we then cal all mental elements subjective?
Also all Kama (desire, passion, emotion, needs and wants)
subjective ? What about "vitality" and energy and power of
various kinds some of which cane transformed (by the will ?)
into physical motion.

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

Just to postulate some kind of infallible karmic record of
everything that ever happens is meaningless as well as illogical.
I don't
have your faith.

DTB Not a faith, please. But do you seriously think
we can ever "escape" the consequences of what we do in this
sensitive universe?
Why should the Karmic record not be infallible? Is it because we
cannot invariably trace effects to causes ? Does our testing (?)
prove its fallibility? I think there will be many quid pro quos
here. But in a Universe as complex as ours why shold we elect to
challenge the idea that it is lawless, or flawed with some laws
that work and others that don't ? If it works with clock-work
precision in ways we have so far not devised for ourselves to
check it, then, it may be an act of faith on our part to decide
that karma neither exists nor does it have any exactitude. It's
a kind of cul-de-sac -- a paradox -- yet, still we live (Still
it turns. -- Galileo)

==================================
Sorry. But the karmic records that I have been able to read
are very subjective and subject to a great deal of
interpretation.
Christians tell us that God writes down everything that we do in
a big book,
and then uses that book to judge us after we die. I used to
believe this as
a child. But I grew up and put away childish notions. Your karmic
records in
the so-called akasa are just different words for God's big book.
I agree
that there is an akasa, and I agree that there are
records/memories there,
and I even think that I may have glimpsed them on the causal
plane, but I do
NOT subscribe to the idea that (1) they are permanent nor (2)
that they are
infallible.

DTB I AGREE We CAN ONLY "WAIT AND SEE"

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


NEW DTB: I have for a definition of AKASA: " The subtle,
supersensuous
spiritual essence which pervades all space...the primordial
substance...the
Universal Space in which lies inherent the eternal Ideation of
the Universe
in its ever-changing aspects on the planes of matter and
objectivity, and
from which radiates the FIRST LOGOS OR EXPRESSED THOUGHT. "

NEW JERRY: The above definition could also hold for prakriti. BTW
both akasa
and prakriti are Hindu terms that are totally rejected by
Buddhism.

DTB The Buddhism I encountered in India (where I
spent over 35 years) it is still studied and promoted by the
MAHABODHI SOCIETY (as an instance) and by others, made use of
both the Pali and the Sanskrit terms -- as IDEAS. Buddhism there
rejects nothing, but it tries to consider it and find what the
truth really is. Remember the Buddha came as a reformer of
Hinduism which had descended in its external practice into black
magic -- animal sacrifices, etc... all aimed at personal
improvement, benefit and development.

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

The words "spiritual essence" is so slippery that it could mean
almost anything.

DTB NON-PHYSICAL -- NO FORM -- BASIC,
FOUNDATIONAL, TRUE


What does "pervading space" mean?

DTB LIMITLESS EXTENSION -- FORMLESS -- ALL INCLUSIVE


Does akasa equal the virtual particles of quantum physics? I
always understood akasa as being the matter/spirit duality in
some particular location, such as on the causal plane where it
would be somewhat more material than spiritual.

DTB Akasa in Sanskrit is translated "sky." In
philosophy it is the "vehicle" of SPIRIT. It is also
MAHA-BUDDHI -- WISDOM of accumulated experience, over the immense
range of the indefinable "past." Also PRIMORDIAL MATTER -- or
Suddha Sattva -- a formless energic substance which forms a link
or bridge between SPIRIT-ATMA and all the degrees of Form and
limitation. [ See S.D. I 157, II 596.]

But sometimes the word is used to indicate the matter which is
above gas - i.e., solids, liquids,
gases, akasa. I would rather not even get into the "Logos"
business, which
is too Christian for my liking and personifies things way too
much.

DTB THE concept of VERBUM, WORD, UNIVERSAL MIND,
UNIVERSAL PLAN OF MANIFESTATION UNDER KARMA -- in 3 stages
unmanifested manifesting, and manifested -- these three bridge
the gap between Pralaya and Manvantara -- The old Universe and
its child the new one.


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

OL DTB: The embodied Ahankara ("I") is a self-centered and
usually physical
body-based, isolated sense of selfish identity, unless I am much
mistaken.
>>

OLD JERRY: This is a Hindu term that you don't find in Buddhism.
In any
case, its existence is an illusion.

NEW DTB What does it matter which system the word is
abstracted
from? Buddhism is a reform of Hinduism, as by the time the Buddha
worked,
the Hindu Brahmins had perverted and materialized many of their
ancient
doctrines and rites.

NEW JERRY: Agreed. And this is why I say that Ahankara is just
such a
perversion and a materialization. Its OK to use the term so long
as we
realize its limitations, and don't jump to the false conclusion
that it has
some kind of inherent reality.

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


OLD DTB: They also used their ancient wisdom/knowledge to
acquire
ascendancy over the people of their time -- had in effect turned
VIRTUE into
VICE. Also, at that time Pali (or Prakrit) was a popular dialect
derived
from the Sanskrit. I would venture to say that not all the
Sanskrit
philosophical terms were carried over into the Pali Buddhism. I
also
observe that the Buddha observed reticence on certain subjects
which would
only overwhelm the average capacity to understand metaphysics,
etc... [
Look at the difference between Mahayana and Vedanta -- the terms
differ, but
the ideas are very close.

NEW JERRY: Buddha taught in three "turnings of the wheel." The
first turning
was primarily the Pali sutras. The second and third included
teachings on
emptiness and the Tantras.

NEW DTB: The idea is, I think, valid, I would say that if we can
think of it
we make of the passing idea a permanency and it is impacted in
the Akasa,
and forms part of our Karma. ] I have for a definition of
Ahankara: "the
egotistical and mayavic principle in man, due to our ignorance
which
separates our "I" from the UNIVERSAL ONE SELF -- Personality,
Egoism."

NEW JERRY: Good definition. Most occult schools will posit some
kind of
carrier that holds our karmic skandhas from one life to the next.
Call it
karmic records in the akasa or the alayavinaya, or the atma.
However, the
Gelugpas, from their founder Tzongkapa on down to HH the Dalai
Lama today,
profess that such a postulation is not necessary and is, in fact,
misleading. Tzongkapa taught that the dying of anyone is itself a
sufficient
cause to produce a new birth as an effect, and some kind of
permanent
storage house is not necessary. Now I agree that Blavatsky seems
to take the
side of the Alayavinja school (the Mind Only school of Asanga)
but to do so
she has to directly oppose Tzongkapa whom she claimed was a
reincarnation of
Buddha himself. Either way, it looks bad for her, I think.

DTB BOTH VIEWS ARE ENTIRELY RECONCILABLE -- THE
karmic Skandhas belong to the material side of living and have a
cycle that brings them back to the point of "reincarnation" be it
a Universe, a World, or a human. Karma is "carried " by them.
But they are not separate from SPIRIT. As Monads they co-exist
and form the ETERNAL PILGRIM -- a Unit of Life which shares in
the ONE SOURCE--SPIRIT, in the ocean of "matter"--BUDDHI and in
the continual advance of the MIND -- THE BUDDHAS AND MANUSHIS OF
MANKIND.

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



OLD DTB If 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.



JERRY: Relative to us, it does seem permanent. But logically it
can't be.


NEW DTB I don't get that at all. If it is done or thought
it has a
continued existence-

NEW JERRY: You apparently didn't finish your thought here.
Anyway, the
notion of permanent is a time-dependent process. There are
permanent things
that don't seem to change over time, but even these things have
beginnings
and ends to them.

Tzongkapa defined permanent as something that is not
dependent on something else for its existence. I rather like
this. It is
logical and it is consistent. If anything depends form its
existence on
something else, then it is, by definition impermanent. By this
definition,
even atma is impermanent because atma depends on the divine Monad
for its
existence.

DTB I CANNOT CONCEIVE OF ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT
DEPENDENT ON CYCLES, and cycles means measured and recurring,
analogetic TIME, EVENTS, RESULTS that follow CAUSES, etc...
There are three independent dependents as I see it. SPIRIT,
MATTER, MIND and as I see it there is also TIME -- but as this is
finite, the infinitude of TIME might be called DURATION -- with
no divisions any more than space and motion have -- these are the
three CONTINUITIES.

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

OLD DTB: I am concerned with the ideas and not whether Buddhism
or Hinduism
has phrases or concepts that are similar.

OLD JERRY: OK, but this is what the 2nd Objective is about.

OLD DTB: 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.

OLD JERRY: Well, we are today getting a very fresh input from
Tibetans who
have been forced to flee from their homeland. I read their
writings a lot,
and they are remarkably consistent and coherent. Tibetan Buddhism
has helped
me to put Theosophy into perspective so that
I now see things in it that I missed before.

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.



NEW JERRY: OK, but these are just a lot of words. Buddhism, for
example,
would tell you that they are all labels posited by the human mind
for things
that the mind doesn't understand. They are, in point of fact,
personifications. There simply is no "THE ABSOLUTE" anywhere but
in our own
mental conceptualizations. We will never get to such a place or
ever be in
such a situation or condition or state or whatever the heck you
think these
words mean. The same is true for Void and Nothingness. There is
no absolute
nor is there a nothingness. There is no non-esse because there is
no ess in
the first place. You can't have one without the other showing up
(I think
that I must have said this about 16 bizillion times, but it seems
that I
still need to say it a few more times). We seem to be in a world
of
relativity, and we think that heaven must surely be a place of
absolutes,
and thus we posit a samsara and a nirvana, but neither of these
places
really exists as such. Permanency and transience are both
occurring all
around us every nanosecond. Heaven and hell are both right here,
right now.
Birth and death are going on outside of us and inside of us right
here,
right now. We think that we are born, and then we grow and live,
and then we
die, but this is an illusion of time. Manas likes to
conceptualize and
compartmentalize, but reality is not that way at all. Truth
appears to us to
be a mysterious something far out of our grasp, but it is
actually closer to
us than the air we breathe and all we really have to do is to
relax and
acknowledge it, but instead we keep ignoring it and our attention
stays
focused on thoughts and mental conceptualizations instead.

DTB AGREED -- MANY WORDS WHICH ENSHROUD IDEAS.
ALWAYS A DIFFICULTY IN CONVEYING THOSE. However whether Buddhism
or anything else the ideas are universal. -- Because ideas are
not physical does not mean they do not exist. The subtler planes
of the astral, vital (prana) Kamic, manasic, buddhic levels are
all interlinks between our PHYSICAL GROSS MATTER PLANE where
everything is deemed to have a form (however transitory) and
IDEAL SPIRIT which is not definable except in terms of
superlatives perhaps.

If we are to explain our being and existence as THINKERS we have
to abandon the idea that our FORM and personality is the only
thing that exists. -- and that the whole UNIVERSE is a construct
of our wishful thinking. There are too many of us and with
divergent views to make this last very long. But we need not
invoke chaos, lack of law and incomprehension for a basis to
avoid observing order, effects that follow causes, and some kind
of reason for existence and the hope for progress. Surely the
Buddha and Tsonkhapa did not advocate pointlessness or
uselessness? As to modern day Tibetan Buddhist teachers and the
Dalai Lama -- they may know their texts, but have they compared
them with theosophy ? If Antique Theosophy is the basis of all
the world religions than even Tibetan Buddhism, esotericism,
Mahayana, Hinayana, Theravada and other systems can be resolved
back into the vast base that a continuous WISDOM RELIGION which
needs no name or designation provides.

Yes, our present bodies will die and be dispersed -- but much of
the real thinking we share persists and forms the new "I" that
will arise phoenix like fro the ashes of our soon to come
"future." (I just posted some quotes on what theosophy offers on
the states of Devachan and Kamaloka which might be of interest to
you.)

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

OLD JERRY: To me, this is all just a bunch of personifications.
There is no
One Self except perhaps as an idea in our mind. Mahat is a Hindu
personification. Atma is a belief that we each possess a separate
and
individual self. Truth is neither absolute nor relative but
rather a
transcendence of these two dualistic concepts. Duality is
duality. We
pretend that we understand the duality of spirit and matter but
somehow fail to understand absolute and relative, or
permanent and transitory for that matter. And how many of us
understand
existence and non-existence? Yet all dualities are dualities,
and all
follow the same rules.

NEW DTB I agree that duality is a deterrent to thinking of
the SOURCE
and of the ONENESS. BUT THAT DETERRENT, so important to us, does
not
obliterate it. But your rejections do not always sound valid to
me.
Obviously we employ different parameters of meaning and we ought
to agree
that we will not agree on such a basis. Your responses need for
my understanding an explanation.

NEW JERRY: Some of your questions are, I think, based on false
assumptions
(the same assumptions that we all have, and this is nothing
personal here).
So any attempt by me to give you logical answers would just keep
us chasing
after whirlwinds. Sometimes I try to provide answers that will
kind of help
us push past manas altogether. Try to look at some of your
questions as
manas-based, and then try to look at some of my answers/responses
as
buddhi-based and hopefully this will help as an explanation for
some of my
weird responses. I do respond to manas with manas when I can,
though. Also,
I am trying to give everyone an appreciation for the differences
between
Hinduism, Buddhism, and Theosophy that I think many folks will
miss
otherwise. I am not necessarily trying to provide the "right"
responses, so
much as to provide optional avenues of thinking. I strongly
believe that
extending our worldview is an important task, and I am using this
forum to
do so. It certainly is helping me to broaden my own.

DTB MANAS WORKS all the time with BUDDHI when it is
directed altruistically.
Thanks for the advice.

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

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

OLD DTB: The MONAD is defined as a "Life-unit" an indissoluble
compound in
manifestation of SPIRIT/MATTER (S.D. I 174-5fn)

OLD JERRY: Technically, I don't agree that life-atom=monad.
Rather, a
life-atom is a monadic expression or ray. But then I like to
remain
consistent and I only use the term monad for any indivisible unit
or
non-aggregate. I think that when we throw the word monad around
for duads
and triads we unnecessarily confuse things.

OLD DTB: As a unit it is a "Self."

OLD JERRY: Yes, and its existence is an illusion.

NEW DTB I use the nomenclature devised by H.P.B. and she does
offer
explanations that ought to be applied to them if we are trying to
understand
her Theosophy. If however we are trying to
change it around then, or adopt some other nomenclature, I find
myself lost
and confused in trying to tailor refit to another system.
Further, the
system you seem to have presented here, (or
adopted ?) does not, in my esteem, fully answer H.P.B.'s
premises.

NEW JERRY: Judge wrote that Theosophy has a shallow surface which
even
children can understand and it also has depths that only a few
can fathom.
The literal interpretation of most of the SD is what I have
called
"shoreline Theosophy" in keeping with Judge's admission that much
of the
teaching is shallow enough for children. I am not "changing it
around" but
rather I think that I am simply trying to interpret it in a way
that is both
logical and as consistent as possible with Buddhism. If we say
that atma,
for example, is permanent and eternal, then we are at odds with
both logic
and Buddhism. But if we can agree that atma is a temporary "ray"
of the
divine Monad, then all is well.

DTB in Hinduism the word ATMA is translated SOUL. In
theosophy the word "soul" is associated with MANAS (Higher and
Lower) In Theosophy ATMA (ATMAN) is used to designate the
UNIVERSAL SPIRIT -- impartite and inherent innate in all beings,
everywhere, in every plane of space without exception. No
"rays," just PRESENCE -- an inescapable BEING. No form of matter
however remote or minute escapes the PRESENCE OF ATMA -- the
UNIVERSAL SPIRIT -- so says THEOSOPHY.

However if you desire to assign the designation of "rays" to the
innate ATMA of every "life-unit" that also is not wrong (from my
point of view) . But ATMA may not be thereby excluded from
anything. Perhaps you use ATMA for SPIRIT in Non -Manifestation
and the "rays of Atma" for SPIRIT in Manifestation ? Does that
clear up anything ? Theosophy uses the designation ABSOLUTE for
that supernal, nameless and formless SOMETHING that ALWAYS IS --
unmodified, timeless, and impartite. Always PRESENT whether
there be manifestation or non-manifestation.

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

OLD DTB I do not think that the fun and enjoyment are the
highest good.

OLD JERRY: I think that seeing life as a serious set of tasks
that have to
be accomplished is a sick/distorted viewpoint. One of the chief
characteristics of the bodhisattva, BTW, is said to be joy.

NEW DTB "Each one to his own" -- is apparent here. What may
displease you
might please me. But setting that aside, the definition is not
one of the
rationale of decision but seems
rather, to be one of the definition of some kind of "pleasure" -
and that is
of course, Kama, or an aspect of passion and desire. If we add to
that the
question of continued life, what will be
the end of our existence ? I believe that MANAS is superior to
KAMA, and
that Kama seeks to draw Manas (the reasoning faculty), down to
its emotional
level and cause it to limit its reasoning
capacities to that level alone. It is a kind of bondage, in
which
everything is then considered in terms of "likes and dislikes,"
and not in
terms of long-range conditions or results. What happens to the
Eternal Monad
if it enters the Nirvana or Moksha? Has anyone any description
of
experience there? H.P.B. does speak of "returning Nirvanees" in
S.D. II
79-80 94 110-111.

NEW JERRY: No, the pleasure and joy that I keep talking about is
not kama
but rather ananda.

DTB ANANDA as far as I know, this means the bliss of
right action, and hence he was Buddha's favorite disciple --
asking but to help and serve and careless of the lower self.

We are said to have an anandakosha, a body of bliss or
bliss body,

DTB ANADAMAYAKOSHA I believe ( S.D. I 157) Maya
still present as a partial illusion and impermanent.

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

in Hinduism, and a sambhogakaya, a buddha's enjoyment body, in
Mahayana Buddhism. Both of these seems to be a similar body. Both
of these
bodies are spiritual and are likely two names for the same thing.
If this
seems anathama to you, then I guess that is your problem, but the
teaching
is that we all have a blissful spiritual body (Christian mystics
called
being in this body "ecstasy," so it exists in virtually all
religions). BTW
the "eternal monad" never enters nirvana or devachan. Its ray,
atma enters
nirvana on the spiritual planes, and atma-buddhi-manas enters
devachan on
the mental plane. The "eternal monad" is far beyond these limited
states.

DTB WITHOUT THE "ETERNAL MONAD" whether Universal
terrene or human or even atomic one could not have manifestation.
MONAD is also unitary as well as discrete simultaneously -- or it
would not be the MONAD. ( S.D. I 174-5 footnote)

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

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

OLD DTB Agreed. But: WHY ?

OLD JERRY: I guess because the Monad is omniscient. Even a
Buddha is said
to be omniscient, and a Monad is above a Buddha.

NEW DTB I would say that the state of Buddhahood is one in
which the
ETERNAL MONAD is able to perceive universally. Karma would be an
open book
before him as needed. But the essential SELF is still THAT which
is able to
confabulate with the REAL -- perhaps that which we name (for lack
of
understanding, but relying on our intuition) the ABSOLUTE.

NEW JERRY: I would say, rather, that the eternal monad always
perceives
universally, and that its expression as a buddha is able to do
likewise. So
far every Buddha who has taught or written down his perceptions
tells us
that no such SELF or ABSOLUTE exists (Padmasambhava, Longchenpa
and
Tzongkapa are three such incarnate-buddhas that come to my mind
right off
the bat, and all three tell us that these things have no inherent
existence
but only conventional existence).

DTB agreed

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


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

OLD DTB Can you prove there is no UNIVERSAL MONAD anywhere.

OLD JERRY: Can you prove to me that there is? Proof is always a
Mexican
standoff. I believe in reincarnation, but I can't prove that one
either.

NEW DTB Only by analogy and correspondence. No one can either
prove or
teach another, but some ideas offered may enable the enquirer to
enlarge
his purview and he educates himself. I have always benefited
from a
discussion like this, and I thank you
Best wishes, Dallas

NEW JERRY: Well, I benefit too. Anyway, "universal monad" sounds
like "God"
and I bet that you would have a hard time differentiating the
two.

DTB DEPERSONALIZE "GOD," and make of it the universal
justice of KARMA or ACTION that follows choice, and we have the
operating scheme in time, space and motion.

The Purpose of this universal working being ought to be a
CONSCIOUS PERFECTION of VISION and UNDERSTANDING -- called by the
Jains KEVAL GNYAN or UNIVERSAL AND TIMELESS CONSCIOUSNESS --
UNIVERSAL WISDOM -- and that is the technical description of a
BUDDHA. or of a Tirthankara.

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


NEW DTB: You mentioned the fact that we have a number of
Tibetan teachers
and MSS which have come into our area. This is true. But who
among us can
make sure that any translations we receive or any teaching that
is offered
is per the original TEACHER who is represented as Source for
doctrines.

NEW JERRY: I am not trying to say that these good Lamas are
connected to
HPB's White Lodge or her occult Teachers. No, these are simply
good Tibetan
Buddhists and their books espouse only Tibetan Buddhism. There
are many
schools, and sub-schools, and many ways of looking at Truth from
within
Buddhism. But HPB claimed to have been an upaseka or Buddhist
trainee, and
she clearly states that Tzongkapa was a great reformer and an
incarnation of
Buddha himself. Now personally, I am more attracted to
Padmasambhava and the
Ningmapas and especially their Dzogchen than I am to Tzongkapa's
Gelugpas,
although I do agree with everything I have ever read from HH the
Dalai Lama
who is likely as close to a living buddha as anyone these days.
I also find it interesting that Olcott was a Theravadin while
Blavatsky was
clearly a Mahayanist...

NEW DTB: As I often say, the individual filter of a translator's
mind adds
to or subtracts from the original teachings. If possible I would
always
desire to go to the originals with a knowledge of the language in
which they
were recorded. Any other way involves a kind of "faith" and
"trust" in the
teacher or his/her interpretation.

NEW JERRY: In this aspect I will simply have to politely
disagree. Whether
you go to the so-called source or to anyone else, you still have
to
interpret what you read. If what you read helps you to broaden
your
worldview, then it is beneficial and the source doesn't matter a
hoot. The
whole basic framework of Mahayana Buddhism is one of helping
others, even if
it means deliberately filtering Truth in ways that others will
understand.
Buddha is said to have done exactly that. Outsiders will read the
sutras and
tantras and conclude that Buddha was at odds with his own
teachings because
they obviously conflict in many areas. Buddhist will say that
this conflict
is because some writings can be taken literally but other
writings must be
interpreted (this is also Tzongkapa's teaching - he makes a
scholarly
argument for this in his Ocean of Reasoning). The reason that I
bring this
up is that I feel we have to do exactly the same thing with
Blavatsky's
writings. Some of her writings are literal and some are
figurative. Some are
shallow and some are deep, as Judge has it. We can take the deep
literally,
but we have to interpret the shallow. This is also true for the
Bible and
most other great works. Why? Because the writer is trying to help
others,
and these others are all at different points along the Path and
so what will
help one will not help another.

NEW DTB: One may of course apply this to the writings and
teachings of
H.P.B. She invites this. Theosophy is marked by its openness and
the desire
that people who approach it test it for themselves. If the Spirit
that is
said to be interior to us exists, then it will determine for our
embodied
mind using either the VOICE OF CONSCIENCE or the INTUITION if
what is
studied or thought of approaches to the Laws and works of nature.
Does it
assist or distort Nature's ways and processes?

NEW JERRY: Yes. What you say here is exactly what I think is
true. We each
must read Blavatsky and adopt what helps us, throw out what
doesn't, and
interpret what we can if that interpretation helps us. I have
been forced to
make interpretations in order to make her Theosophy agree with
Buddhism, and
although I can't make the fit 100%, I have been able to be pretty
close, I
think. But if we take everything that she wrote as literal truth
we will one
day find ourselves in logical deep doo doo because it is totally
illogical
to say, for example, that we have a permanent eternal Self inside
us, and
then turn around and say that everything in manifestation is
maya.

DTB MANY THANKS JERRY -- ENJOYED AS USUAL

ALL THE BEST TO YOU AS ALWAYS,

Dallas

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




NEW DTB: Finally all wisdom is acquired through experience.
Studying the
VOICE OF THE SILENCE I perceive that the moral/ethical dimension
is a most
important factor.
D.

NEW JERRY: Completely agree.

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