Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00008)

Dear Jerry

Merely to say "it is an illusion" does not make it so. If it is
an "illusion" then what is the REALITY ?

-----Original Message-----
From: G S.
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:13 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: More Responses to Dallas



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.

JERRY: The Inner Ruler is an illusion or "ray" of something else.

OF WHAT


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

DTB: 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.

JERRY: The I to which you refer above is either the ego or Ego,
and both are
illusions.

OF WHAT ?
--------------------------------------

DTB: 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.

JERRY: I don't assume that any of the 7 planes are "real." The
physical
plane seems real in the waking state, but then again a dream
seems real
while dreaming. What is really going on, is not as it appears to
our senses.

THEN WHAT IS GAINED BY OUR PERCEPTIONS ?

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

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.

JERRY: We already have corresponding senses on all planes. The
cosmic planes
may seem strange and mysterious to us, but they are part of our
Self and we
are actually familiar with them.

AGREED


DTB: 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.

JERRY: I kind of agree with you, that an inner need is a
pre-requisite.

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

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.

JERRY: The "sense of separateness" Buddha warned us against has
more to do
with having a sense of individual selfhood than anything else.
When the
divine Monad splits into duality, it becomes an I-Not-I Monad
which actually
is composed of three things: a subjective self, and objective
not-self, and
a force that relates the two which is called fohat. The self and
not-self,
or purusha and prakriti, comprise the orginal duality that starts
the
manvantaric expression going. The self or I part of that is
original heresy
of separateness that Buddha warns us about. As this I-Not-I Monad
self-manifests downward into the planes, the self part becomes
atma. So I
would equate this original self or sense of selfhood with
paratman
(literally beyond atman).

DTB
SEPARATENESS IS NOT OF THE SPIRIT.
SEPARATENESS IS OF THE "MATTER" WHICH COMPOSES FORMS.
BUT WHY ARE FORMS MADE? If the components of forms are
"life-atoms" then the "illusory" and "temporary" situation has
the value of raising them to INDIVIDUALITY ( Self-Consciousness)
and the next step which they (we) induce is rising to SPIRITUAL
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. Unless I am much mistaken, Buddha taught
that.


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

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 ?

JERRY: OK


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

DTB: But, to me, I do NOT dissociate myself (or any
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.

JERRY: I do not dissociate from nature either. In fact, I would
call Nature
those rules/principles of our life-wave agreement that pertain to
our
overlapping Not-I's. In short, Nature has to do with the external
world that
is the other half of our Self. The basic division into self and
not-self is
an illusion - they are really one. The problem with the word
"universal" is
that it only pertains to a universe and there are countless
universes. The
idea that we are all sharing one single universe is part of the
illusion,
and calling things "universal" helps maintain that illusion.

AGREED


DTB: 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.

JERRY: Well, everything and anything one can say about life,
ourselves, and
the world around us has to be symbolic. Jung has pointed out how
the
language of archetypes is in symbols, which we each then have to
interpret
as signs. BTW serious business and a fun game are simply two
polar ways of
looking at things.

AGREED


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

DTB: EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION ENTERS THE
CONTEMPLATIVE and SUBJECTIVE plane
Our so called OBJECTIVITY is entirely a matter of memory.

JERRY: This Theosophical notion of subjective planes vs objective
planes as
well as planes of cause and planes of effect are just possible
ways of
seeing things, not literal truth. Every one of the 7 planes has
both
subjectivity and objectivity, and both cause and effect, and if
you think
about it you should be able to realize that you can't have one
without the OTHER.

AGREED

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


DTB: 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.

JERRY: How can I remember the present? So far as I have been able
to tell, I
can only remember my past. Memory, in fact, IS the past. History
and
historical undertakings are all about trying to reach a consensus
as to what
happened in the past. What REALLY happened is absolutely
inconsequential
because there is no such thing. I used a meditation technique for
several
years in which I would focus my attention only on the present,
forgetting
the future and past altogether. When I was able to do this, I
discovered
that memory itself disappeared.

I have already said many times what I think about "moral
consequences" and
have written articles on moral development and on how morals
work. Yes
Dallas, we can indeed "escape" our moral consequences. The
technique used to
do this is called the Path, and it is what liberation is all
about. Buddha's
4 Noble Truths tell us that we can, indeed, liberate ourselves
from our own
karma, and the fact that Theosophy ignores this teaching is one
of the main
factors that will kill the Theosophcal Movement in the end (my
prediction,
and you heard it here!)

DTB
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE KARMA OF OUR PAST AS A PERSONALITY, LEAVES
A DISTORTION IN THE UNIVERSAL HARMONY. KARMA REQUIRES THAT We
ADJUST AND RESTORE THAT HARMONY -- HENCE THE "PATH" AND THE 4
NOBLE TRUTHS AS A METHOD OF ACHIEVING THIS. [ Essay on KARMA, at
end of LIGHT OF THE PATH is another way of stating this.]

BUT IN THEOSOPHY AS FAR AS I KNOW THE PATH AND THE NOBLE TRUTHS
ARE FULLY UNDERSTOOD AND SUPPORTED. THE ARE LOGICAL AND
NECESSARY.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT BUDDHISM IS A PART OF THE THEOSOPHICAL
MOVEMENT -- I MEAN THE ANCIENT ONE -- AND NOT THE RECENT ONE
RE-STARTED IN 1875.

I DO NOT FIND THE TEACHINGS OF THE BUDDHA DIFFERENT FROM THE
THEOSOPHICAL.

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

DTB: 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.

JERRY: Here is my take on this: Subjective is a word used to
define any
experience that we have. When we have an experience that is
shared by
others, we call it objective. Basically, everything is subjective
and
objectivity is a consensus of certain subjective experiences. All
that we
can know about life is what we observe through our senses, which
are
terribly faulty. Our worldview is subjective. Our feelings and
emotions are
subjective. Our thoughts and ideas are subjective. In a more
philosophical
view, everything that pertains to our sense of selfhood can be
called
subjective and everything else can be called objective. Our
subjective sense
of self and our objective sense of world both merge together in
non-duality.

AGREED AS EXPLAINED


DTB: But the MIND which controls and interprets both is
non-material -- shall we then call 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.

JERRY: I agree that all mental elements are not subjective. As I
said above,
each plane contains subjectivity and objectivity. Dreams are
experiences on
the astral and mental planes, and in dreams we also have a
subjective sense
of self looking out at an objective world.

AGREED


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

OLD JERRY: 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?

JERRY: If someone tells you that akashic records exist, and you
have never
seen them, then you have to take their existence on faith. I
don't see how
you can do otherwise. You seem to be in denial when it comes to
your faith.
Actually I have a great deal of faith in faith. Faith is a good
thing.

Karmic Consequences: You seem to be taking HPB very literally
when she talks
about the cycle of necessity and how every cause must produce an
effect, and
so on. According to this view our fate is to cycle forever. Such
a view
ignores the possibilty of liberation from karma (jivamukta). No,
there is no
"escape" in the sense that you seem to be using it. However,
karma itself
allows for its own transcendence - liberation is an effect, and
the Path is
the cause. This is probably THE central teaching of Buddhism, and
Theosophy
seems to ignore it.

DTB
IF IT IS A FACT THEN THEOSOPHY CERTAINLY DOES NOT IGNORE IT.
What does the Jivanmukta do to escape karma? Is it solely his
own Karma or the KARMA OF EVERYTHING ELSE that is "escaped ? " W
hat is the necessity of "escape?"
WHO or WHAT in Man's constitution does the "escaping?" Are we so
afraid of pain and suffering, especially of that which we have
brought on ourselves by wrong choices in past and present ?
HOW LONG DOES THE JIVANMUKTA "ESCAPE" IN TIME? And if this
escape occurs, then what happens to the JIVANMUKTA as an Entity ?
As I understand it the BUDDHA refused to enter Nirvana and become
a JIVANMUKTA. Then what was His reason? Is that given ? Where
is HE now ?

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



DTB: Why should the Karmic record not be infallible?

JERRY: Nothing, not even the Pope, is infallible.

DTB
THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND. I DO NOT BELIEVE
IN MYSTERIES -- as so often the Church terminates questioning in
its Catechism: "That is a mystery. Don't ask."

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IN A UNIVERSE OF LAW THERE ARE NO ULTIMATE
ANSWERS THAT We CANNOT INTUIT THEM.

The Pope I would say is highly fallible.

But would you say the BUDDHA is fallible ? My understanding is
that he passed out of our levels of illusion into the full light
of TRUTH UNIVERSAL -- yet preserved a link intact to our plane of
existence (illusion) so as to continue to help us out of our
blindness and lack of perception. How else can this be done but
by enfranchising the Mind from its illusions of separateness and
form-limitation?

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


DTB: 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.

JERRY: Logic is all that is necessary to "prove" its not
infallible.
Infallible means that it can't make mistakes, that it can't be
wrong, that
it is always right. As I have said many times, right and wrong
are a duality
and you can't have one without the other. There is no such thing
as always
right or always wrong. These two sides of the coin have to go
together.

DTB
AGREED -- SO THERE IS A UNIVERSAL LAW WITHIN WHICH We ALL LIVE
AND DEVELOP. ALSO THERE ARE THOSE MEN/MINDS WHO HAVE "ESCAPED"
THE ILLUSIONS, BUT HAVE NOT USED THEIR WISDOM TO SELFISHLY
"ESCAPE" AND ABANDON THEIR MORE IGNORANT COMPANIONS ?
====================================


DTB: 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)

JERRY: Science used to think that the world was a perfect machine
and that
if we knew enough about it we would know everything. Then
relativity,
quantum physics, and chaos theory came along, and no scientist
believes this
any more. Why are Theosophists so far behind modern scientists?
The law of
dualities says that you can't have one without the other. This
law works the
same way for the order-chaos duality as it does for all
dualities. Each and
every piece of our universe has some law and some flaw, some
order and some
chaos, some existence and some non-existence.

DTB
AS FAR AS I KNOW THEOSOPHY SPOKE TO THESE THINGS LONG BEFORE
SCIENCE RECOGNIZED AND DEMONSTRATED THEM. I SEE THOSE TEACHING
IN THE S.D.

SCIENCE IS AT LAST CATCHING UP. WHEN THE DISCOVER THE
EVER-PRESENT ASTRAL PLANE We WILL BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD A GREAT
DEAL MORE.

I WOULD SAY THE CONCEPT OF DUALITY INDEED MAKES FOR ILLUSION.
BUT THE CONCEPT OF THE UNITING TRIAD MAKES CHAOS INTELLIGIBLE
BECAUSE THAT POSITION TRANSCENDS MERE DUALITY.
To me dualism has always lacked something: 1. its SOURCE is
not considered relevant. 2. the result of duality is not to be
found until a uniting base is found established and used to
transcend mere divergence and make of it even temporarily a
UNITY. However, this makes a Tetraktis -- a 4. The "illusory"
entity that undergoes evolutionary experience on many planes is
essential to the system.

I WOULD SAY WE, FORCED TO FUNCTION (for the present) IN AND
THROUGH THIS MATERIAL PLANE ARE DRIVEN TO CONCEIVE OF HIGHER AND
MORE STABLE LEVELS.


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



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.

JERRY: Agreed.


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

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

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


JERRY: Only one plane is physical, the lowest. The other six are
all
non-physical. The lower three planes contain forms, and the upper
four are
relatively formless. The upper three planes are spiritual, and I
would guess
that "spiritual essence" could be the "substance" of any of the 3
upper
planes.

AGREED

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

OLD JERRY: What does "pervading space" mean?

DTB: LIMITLESS EXTENSION -- FORMLESS -- ALL INCLUSIVE

JERRY: But each plane has it own "space." No matter how far space
reaches on
the physical plane, it will never reach to the astral, and so on.

DT
As I understand it all planes are inter-related, hence the
inter-penetrate. H.P.B. uses the phrase "coadunition but not
consubstantiality" [ S.D. I 166 ]

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


DTB: Akasa in Sanskrit is translated "sky." In
philosophy it is the "vehicle" of SPIRIT.

JERRY: This is confusing to me. Spirit is usually considered as
objective in
the same sense as matter and both matter and spirit are generally
used as
objective substances on the cosmic planes. How can objective
substance have
a "vehicle?" G de Purucker, for example, uses vehicle and body
interchangeably, which makes sense to me. Consciousness needs a
body or
vehicle for each plane. But why does spirit need a body?

DTB
SPIRIT REALLY DOES NOT NEED A BODY. WHY THE UNIVERSE IS MADE UP
OF LIFE-ATOMS (monads that reflect the ONE UNIVERSAL MONAD) I DO
NOT KNOW. IT HOWEVER MAKES SENSE TO ME LOOKING AROUND THAT ALL
"FORMS" WOULD BE COMPOSED OF LESSER ELEMENTS WHICH IN THEMSELVES
ARE AS IMMORTAL AND SIGNIFICANT IN TIME SPACE AND MOTION AS ANY
OTHER BEING.
In other words the Universe is not based on an intelligence that
considers "size" (an illusion) as an important factor.
Our Human minds involved in FORMS does consider (erroneously)
size as important. [Consequently we often think, feel, and act
as "bullies." The concept of being a preceptor, tutor, teacher
of the young and defenseless, is one widely lacking in our
present culture -- though deeply felt as an intuition in most
individuals -- but I do not find it lacking in either Buddhism or
in Theosophy. To me this is the moral link between all
intelligence of whatever kind or position.

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


DTB: 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.]

JERRY: Here again I am confused. Now you bring matter into it,
and somehow
you want to equate "wisdom" a subjective character, with "matter"
an
objective character, and this doesn't make sense to me.

DTB
PRIMORDIAL MATTER is NOT MATTER AS We KNOW IT NOW. IT IS
PRIMEVAL AND LASTS AS LONG AS ITS CONTRAST: SPIRIT. AND IS AN
EQUAL RADIATION FROM THE EVER INDESCRIBABLE SOURCE -- THE
ABSOLUTE.

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


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.

JERRY: All of this stuff is too much personification for me. I
see it as
just a bunch of words for God.

DTB
AGREED THEY ARE WORDS. BUT THEY ALSO CONVEY IDEAS THAT ARE
DYNAMIC AND LINK THE MATERIAL CONDITION We ARE IN WITH THE SOURCE
OF ALL.

THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DESCRIBE THE PASSAGE OUT OF PRALAYA INTO
MANVANTARA (AGAIN AS A REINCARNATION OF THE UNIVERSE) OF ALL THE
BEINGS THAT PRESENTLY ARE TRAVELING ON "THE PATH." AND PRACTICING
THE 4 NOBLE TRUTHS IN SOME WAY.

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


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.

JERRY: Dallas, I am more confused than ever. You say that they
can be
"entirely reconciled" and then turn right around and talk about
monads, and
skandhas, and unit of life, and eternal pilgrims, all of which
Tzongkapa and
his Gelugpas totally reject. I don't see any reconciliation, but
rather you
seem to be saying that Tzongkapa and the Gelugpas (including the
line of
Dali and Panchen Lamas) are all wrong.

DTB
I CAN'T HELP IT IF YOU THINK TSONKHAPA AND OTHERS REJECT THIS
CONCEPT.
I DO NOT OFFER IT AS A MATTER OF "DOGMA." I THINK THEY
UNDERSTAND AND ENDORSE IT. WHY SHOULD THEY NOT?

Theosophy recognizes none. I offered it as the explanation
Theosophy has offered. I would be entirely surprised to find
Tsonkhapa rejecting this idea.

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


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.

JERRY: Tzongkapa and his Gelugpas teach that anything that
depends for its
existence on something else cannot be permanent.

DTB
Everything depends on the absolute -- WHICH AS source IS THE
ULTIMATE BASIS FOR BOTH MANIFESTATION AND NON-MANIFESTATION.
They do not arise out of NOTHING. And for no CAUSE.

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

In order to have permanent
existence, you can't depend on something else but rather must be
independent.

DTB
How can anyone or anything be totally independent ?> we share
in so many things, objectively and subjectively? Now I am
confused by such an assumption.

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

Furthermore, they also teach that anything that comes into
existence depending on certain causes and conditions (ie, what
they refer to
as a dependent arising)is temporary and has only a conventional
reality.

DTB
THOSE "CERTAIN CAUSES AND CONDITIONS" ARE THEY DEFINED ?

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

This is rather easy to understand with physical objects, but is
perhaps a
bit more difficult to understand for mental and spiritual
objects. Thus I
easily reach the logical conclusion that everything within this
7-plane
solar system is temporary and not permanent. For any kind of
reconciliation
to occur, Theosophy would have to accept this.

DTB
BUT, AS I SEE IT THEOSOPHY DOES ACCEPT THIS CONCEPT. TO PASS
MENTALLY FROM THE SOURCE TO THE LIMITATION OF FORM A NUMBER OF
LOGICAL STEPS (IN PLANE AND FORM AS WELL AS INTELLIGENCE) HAVE TO
EXIST -- EVEN IF TEMPORARILY.

In other words there is something that is PERMANENT which uses
the impermanent. How are we to distinguish between the two? Is
there any value in the "impermanent ?" If so how is that to be
define?

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


DTB: 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.

JERRY: I no longer explain my existence as a thinker at all. My
existence as
a thinker is an illusion. And yes, I do see the universe as my
wishful
thinking. But then, who is this "my" that I am referring to?

DTB
IN MY OWN CASE I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT THAT ALSO.

IF WE SPEAK AND COMMUNICATE THROUGH THESE INSTRUMENTS, then we
as subjective entities have an existence that is non material and
not to be defined in material terms. We tend to say they are
also impermanent, illusory, etc. because we do not know exactly
what PERMANENCE is. Yet in our discussion we constantly refer to
"We' , and "I" employing those indefinite words to imply a
permanency which could only be described as the OBSERVER, or
EXPERIENCER. We seem to lack the vocabulary to agree on, but we
both record the experience in our own way

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



DTB: There are too many of us and with divergent views to make
this last
very long.

JERRY: The universe around us is one of general consensus, a
shared realm.
That to which we do not share a consensus remains our personal
realm. And we
each have both.
========================


DTB: 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.

JERRY: There is no need to invoke anything. Order and chaos are
both alive
and well in the world. We cannot "avoid observing order" any more
than we
can avoid observing chaos.

AGREED


DTB: Surely the Buddha and Tsonkhapa did not advocate
pointlessness or
uselessness?

JERRY: No, that was Lao-tzu and Changtzu, although the Zen
teaching of wu
comes close enough as well. Mystics teach uselessness, and
Tzongkapa, from
what I have seen, was not a mystic.

DTB
MY READING OF LAO-TZE DID NOT MAKE HIM OUT AS USELESS. HE
DISCUSSED ULTIMATES -- AND USED THEM AS GUIDES FOR THOSE WHO
DESIRED TO FOLLOW THE "PATH" -- AS I RECALL HE WAS A
CONTEMPORARY OF BUDDHA.

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


DTB: As to modern day Tibetan Buddhist teachers and the
Dalai Lama -- they may know their texts, but have they compared
them with theosophy ?

JERRY: Why should they? I think that this is a job for
Theosophists to do,
if for no other reason than to demonstrate that Blavatsky knew
what she was
talking about (Wallace and other modern Buddhist scholars are
currently
saying that Blavatsky knew nothing of true Buddhism and it is up
to us to
refute this).

DTB
MAHAYANA BUDDHISM SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE REST. AS FAR
AS I KNOW THE THEOSOPHY OF H.P.B. IS DRAWN FROM THE MAHAYANA. I
AM VERY MUCH INFLUENCED BY THE IDEALS THAT ARE RECORDED IN "The
voice of the Silence." That is a Mahayana treatise.

THERE IS A GAP (not irreconcilable) BETWEEN HINAYANA AND
MAHAYANA.

As far as I can see Theosophists have to consider, study and
reconcile all "religions." None is superior to any other if we
consider WISDOM to be universal and impartial. The various
religions and philosophical and psychological systems are (as far
as I can ascertain) all inter-related, inter-twined and possibly
identical in their fundamentals and ideals.

I would say that the exponent who followed any GREAT TEACHER made
of His/Her words dogmas for which they were not able to derive
logical explanations. In other words they limited themselves and
did not liberate their minds from the phrases they could
understand of the original exponent.

Personally I do not find much difference between the original
teaching of Buddha and Theosophy and I know that in several
places, those who wrote originally on Theosophy, such as H.P.B.
and the Masters, speak of the BUDDHA with the most profound
respect. There is no reason for the humble followers of either
system to do anything but try to understand each other - as we
are.

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


DTB: 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.

JERRY: While I don't disagree with you, I will remind you that
such a "base"
must be interpreted by its students, and that perhaps it is in
this
interpretative process where problems creep in?

AGREED


DTB: 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.)

JERRY: I don't disagree with what you say, but I would remind you
that this
so-called "real thinking" is not permanent, and that the
phoenix-like "I" is
an illusion.

DTB
AGREED -- YET FROM LIFE TO. LIFE IT REAPPEARS. AND, IT IS
MODIFIED BY LIVING AND THE NATURE OF THE CONTROL We EXERCISE OVER
OUR PERSONALITIES.

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


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.

JERRY: I agree that Theosophy's atma is higher than Hinduism's
atma. But I
also think that atma is an illusion and is not permanent no
matter where you
want to locate it. It is relatively permanent to us, but
relatively fleeting
when compared to the divine Monad or the para-atma.

DTB
Paramatma - IS OF COURSE THE TRANSCENDENT AND PERHAPS IT IS A
NAME USED IN THE Hindu PHILOSOPHY TO DESIGNATE THE "ABSOLUTE."

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

DTB: 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) .

JERRY: I do so desire. On page 435 of G de Purucker's Fountain
Source you
will see a diagram showing atman as a ray from paramatman (as a
Sanskrit
scholar, he liked to add a final n). In this figure you will also
see atma
(alias atman) as the highest part of our auric egg. He says
"Paramatman is
kosmic or galactic; Atman is cosmic or appurtenant to the solar
system" (p
434) In this way, just as our galaxy is part of something bigger,
so there
is something bigger than even paramatman - the idea of "universe"
thus
expands infinitely all the way up to "divinity" whatever that is.

UNDERSTOOD


DTB: 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.

JERRY: I see spirit and matter as a duality, and so within our
7-plane solar
system, and thus both are within manvantaric manifestation. I see
atma as
somehwere on the upper three planes, and its rays as descending
downward
into the lower four planes. I see Absolute (personally I dislike
the term
altogether) as that which is totally outside the whole 7 planes
and thus
outside of time and space

UNDERSTOOD
.
=====================================

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.


JERRY: Well, there was a disciple named Ananda, but I don't think
that this
has anything to do with the bliss of spirituality. Ananda as used
in
Buddhism is not just the joy of right action, but rather the
bliss of
spirituality. When consciousness rises into any of the three
upper planes,
there is an overwhelming sense of oneness and bliss. This bliss
goes way
beyond joy, and is called ecstasy by the Christian mystics who
experienced
it.

DTB

ANANDA THE FAVORITE DISCIPLE OF THE BUDDHA is one. But the
Sanskrit word "ananda" is also translated joy or bliss.

I would say the rising of our "lower" CONSCIOUSNESS into its own
Higher Self as the origin of its lower self would reconcile
confusion and illusion of perception as the TRUE would make
everything clear. But this is not a "sensation" that involves
one or other aspects of Kama -- unless it invokes the
transcendent Kama as KAMADEVA ( see T. Gloss pp 170-1)


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


OLD JERRY: 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.

JERRY: The term I used is from modern Buddhist translations, and
not from
Blavatsky whose Oriental terms are largely outdated. In any
event, I agree
that it is maya because everything in the whole 7-plane solar
system
including the upper 3 spiritual planes, is maya. If you look at
the listings
for bodies or sheaths, you will find the Body of Bliss at the
top - it is a
spiritual body. The bliss experienced in this body has been
likened to a
whole-body orgasm, and female Christian mystics likened it to
having sex
with Jesus. My own experiences agree with those views.

DTB
THE PROBLEM THAT SEEMS TO ARISE WITH US ALL IS NOVELTY Often we
think because H.P.B. wrote 125 years or so ago she is
"put-darted." I would disagree with this view. I would rather
say that she is not studied. The fact is that she was the
Masters' Messenger -- are you sure that the Theosophical Mahatmas
do not include GAUTAMA THE BUDDHA ? IO find in the ML that they
REFER to HIM as a most transcendent ONE, and show Him every
respect.

The fact that on the transcendent planes all the great teachers
are a single body is difficult for us who read current material
to understand. It is just as difficult to understand the
permanence of the SPIRIT, of the ABSOLUTE, and of PRIMORDIAL
MATTER. We seem to ant to divide and isolate them and then reduce
them to impotence by saying "ILLUSION." "TRANSITORY."

As far as I can see this does not help us get to any real
understanding.

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

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)

JERRY: The idea of a discrete self is an illusion, and whether we
call it a
monad or not doesn't change that.

DTB
AS FAR AS I CAN SEE THAT MAKES NO SENSE. IF IT IS, IT IS.
DENIAL DOES NOT ELIMINATE IT.

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

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.

JERRY: Problem here is that I do equate universal karma and God.
I can't see
any difference. Neither are good teachers, or good parents for
that matter,
if that is what they are supposed to be doing. Causality
certainly does
exist, but it doesn't serve to teach us anything because the
effect is too
long following the cause. Any teacher will tell you that for
teaching to be
effective the effect must quickly follow the cause. I also
believe in
acausality because I experience it (and to explain it as God's
will or as
karma in a past life is no explanation at all).

DTB
I REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT LINE OF REASONING. IT IS
NIHILISTIC AND CONSEQUENTLY ARRIVES AT NEITHER DESCRIPTION, CAUSE
NOR EFFECT -- SO OF WHAT VALUE IS IT ? To me its logic is quite
unclear. But I would not deny you the satisfaction of having and
using it.

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


DTB: 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.

JERRY: The technical description of a Buddha, that I am familiar
with, is
one who has awakened to the truth of what is really going on, and
who has
omniscience in the sense that he can look at a person and know
exactly what
best to say and do in order to help that person the most. Our
consciousness
is already perfect and timeless, and so you seem to be suggesting
that the
purpose of manifestation is to show us what we already are, and I
would
agree with that.

Now that makes sense -- agreed

Best wishes,

Dal


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

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