[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Response to Dallas

May 14, 2001 05:22 PM
by dalval14

Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Monday, May 14, 2001

Hi Jerry:

Sorry for the delay in answering

Here we go, :)

See below.



-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler []
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:49 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Response to Dallas

DTB: May I persist? What do you perceive as REALITY ? How
do you perceive it? Can I share in that perception ? Can anyone
else share? Or, Do we make our own ?

JERRY: I define Reality in relative terms. It is anything that we
while we experience it. Some experiences are shared by others,
and these
consensus experiences are what most people call reality. But I
believe that
all experiences are relatively real, shared or personal.


NEW DTB AGREED, Yet I read the AKASA is
supposed to keep an eternal record of individual events. If
true, then this is the basis for Karma. No event on any "plane
of existence" remains 'traceless.'
So a "record" [ by the Lipika (penmen) or some forces of Nature
that do the job ] is conceivable, and the possibility ought not
to be wiped away.

How would Karma ( The LAW of Laws) operate without records that
took into account all the effects of any action, thought or
feeling ? I would say this is a factor in living Nature, and
part of its total process of making adjustments to the constantly
varying impact of various actions and forces.
However, if you say you define REALITY in terms of your (or my)
limited and relative experience (in this incarnation) , I would
say that you (or I) could not make such a concept, or attempt to
define it, without something more "solid" than your current
experiences. I say this because it seems to me that unless (you
and/or I) , to back them up, conceived there was a necessary
"something" in you (and I) which appertains to the ETERNAL and
the NON-MANIFEST (REALITY ?) In other words, behind our
"illusory" Self -- as presently incarnated and forced to use the
"brain-mind," there has to be some kind of persistence that gives
it origin, life and stability. How can illusion speak about the
reality ? Except in negative terms ? Or at most it can say out
of my experience, but possible ? I am not relying on doctrine to
suggest this but only on the logic that Nothing can emanate out
of Nothing. There will always be a wider, deeper, more
persistent "SOMETHING" ( Reality ?) from with temporality

>From this I would derive (logic) that there is in us, the
perception of the need for continuous participation in the
changes induced by either ourselves or others in our
environment -- visible and invisible. So we are back to the
search again: What is it that PERCEIVES? What is its longevity,
and persistence?

I had concluded that if we were a part of the WHOLE, then the
very HIGHEST SOURCE, would also be a part of us -- and the bond
or "presence" was nothing we could avoid or remove.
If true, then the purpose for our present existence and future
choices becomes valuable to consider. Can we by an act of
self-will eliminate future participation in the vast processes
that seem to involve universality and timelessness ? We might
be able to solve some of our personal queries but then how do we
prove to ourselves they are strictly valid ?


DTB: I can see your point, but, as above, how is REALITY
perceived ? Will a
mental concept be acceptable? If so then however mayavic it
might be, the
MEMORY of that moment of PERCEPTION persists -- I would then ask
where is it
impacted and how can we re-access it ? Are there any time-limits
to such

JERRY: Reality is perceived through some kind of sensory
equipment and then
interpreted. Mental concepts or perceptions of reality are
faulty, just like
all models have initial assumptions and inherent limitations.
Memories are always fallible except perhaps for a Buddha. When an
occurs with six people, all six will retain slightly different
memories of
what happened. Their respective realities will be based on those
and thus will be different. To put it simply: There is no one
reality - we
each carry around our own. I can never fully know your reality,
and you can
never fully know mine. We know of each other's realities only
those parts
that we share together.


MEMORIES ? If we admit difference of personal views about what
actually happened, then we say only that our views will differ
among ourselves. We DO NOT SAY THAT THE RECORD (as preserved in
the Akasa) IS FAULTY.


OLD JERRY: What do you think "the mind is the slayer of the real"

DTB: The "mind" that is "killed" is the temporary
reflection -- the mind of the Personality -- or LOWER MANAS --
that, except for its aspirations and altruistic tendencies --
would be destroyed as an "entity" at death. However the impress
made (as Karma, or a the permanent impact of its existence left
on the fabric of the AKASA would in my understanding persist as
it becomes part of the joint KARMA of the Universe and my

JERRY: The human mind, because of its "afflictions," (as
Buddhists call
them) kills reality by distorting it. Our own personal human
thinking mind
is the slayer (modern translators have "concealer") of reality,
and reality
can never be known through the mind, but by its transcendence.

DTB AGREED But once we realize this fact, we are no
longer bound by those limitations, we seem to have graduated to a
higher level of mental perception, where space and time no longer
are the same kind of barriers. Is this possibly an introductory
"wedge" into the though processes of the HIGHER-MIND ? of


DTB: I understand that on the physico-astral plane there is
constant change (maya) but, in terms of EVENT, that which has
happened cannot be effaced. I understand that that impress is
permanent. (Of course 'permanency' might be deemed limited in
time. But for there to be a reincarnation of Universes (still in
time) the permanency of Karma would bridge the gap not only of
adjacent Universes but of necessity (Nidana) would be prolonged
so long as any individual or personal disturbance remained. And
then, I ask myself -- What happens to the various "life-forms"
that were part of that illusory sequence -- to borrow your

JERRY: There is nothing at all permanent on the physical, the
etheric, or
the mental planes. Things change constantly on all three. Events
are said to
be impressed on the causal plane, where they are poetically said
to be
recorded by the Lipikas. But exactly what are events? They are
our memories
of our experiences, and we each impress our own experiences in
what HPB
called the Reincarnating Ego, and these are then used to form our
burden" for future lives. The impressions from atma-buddhi become
shistas or seeds of the next manvantara.


NEW DTB agreed --
but, if we eliminate the inaccuracies of any personal element,
then why can there be no impersonal impression left? An exact
"photograph" of the change ? This implies that "something" in us
is NOT BOUND by the limits of this present incarnated Lower-mind.


DTB: Does the UNIVERSAL MONAD vanish? If so why all the effort?
Why the
NOBLE EIGHT-FOLD PATH? why any striving towards "PERFECTION?"

JERRY: The "universal monad" is a spark of divinity and does not
because it is truly monadic - uncompounded. Rather than thinking
of the
Monad as depending on divinity, I suspect that it is more of the
nature of a
co-dependency which allows both divinity and its sparks to be
and virtually independent.


NEW DTB Let me offer a quotation here for you to review:
(personally I do not pay importance as to whether it may be of
Buddhist or Hindu origin -- with me the point always is: Is it
true ?)

" the Rig Veda wherein Brahmaa is not even named, Cosmogony
is preluded with the Hiranya-gharba , "the Golden Egg," and
Prajapati (Brahmaa later on), from whom emanate all the
hierarchies of the "Creators."

The Monad, or point, is the
original and is the unit from which follows the entire numerical
system. This Point is the First Cause, but THAT from which it
emanates, or of which, rather, it is the expression, the Logos,
is passed over in silence. In its turn the universal symbol, the
point within the circle, was not yet the Architect, but the cause
of that Architect; and the latter stood to it in precisely the
same relation as the point itself stood to the circumference of
the Circle, which cannot be defined...With Pythagoras, the MONAD
returns into silence and Darkness as soon as it has evolved the
triad, from which emanate the remaining seven numbers of the 10
(ten) numbers which are at the base of the manifested universe.."
(S.D. I 426-7)

"This great circle (which Eastern Esotericism reduces to the
point within the Boundless Circle) is the Avalokiteswara, the
Logos or Verbum...But this circle or manifested God is unknown to
us, except through its manifested universe, as the ONE , though
easier, or rather more possible to our highest conceptions, This
Logos...which cannot cognize Parabrahmam [the ABSOLUTE]
otherwise than as Mulaprakriti [ Root-Matter] -- the latter
being a cosmic veil which is "the mighty expanse of cosmic
matter"-- is thus only an organ in cosmic creation, through which
radiates the energy and wisdom of Parabrahmam, unknown to the
Logos, as it is to ourselves." (S.D. I 429)

"In every religion we find the concealed deity forming the ground
work; then the ray there from, that falls into primordial cosmic
matter (first manifestation); then the androgyne result, the
dual Male and Female abstract Force, personified (second stage) ;
this separates itself finally, in the third, into seven [7]
Forces, called the creative Powers by all the ancient
Religions..." (S.D. I 437)

NEW DTB I think this may explain my meaning, or at least
the base fro which I write.


DTB: I am convinced logically that everything has a PURPOSE
regardless of
whether we might consider its presence, passage and
evanescence to be "ILLUSORY."

JERRY: Yes, logically Motion needs purpose. And indeed,
everything in Motion
does have a purpose. But the Monad is outside of Space & Motion
and purpose
no longer applies. What purpose does Be-ness or Thatness have?
atma-buddhi, and certainly atma-buddhi-manas have a purpose.


NEW DTB DO YOU MEAN that IT retires out of
manifestation and back into BENESS and its ABSOLUTENESS? If so,
I would agree to that idea. However "the impressions" made of
all changes cannot be destroyed -- there is even THAT which
transcends the greatest of Pralayas we might be able to conceive
of in true ETERNITY (not that limited by a Kalpa).

If so the Nidana and concatenation of cause-effect-cause is truly
endless -- and there is not for any one of the many components of
the UNIVERSE in its TOTALITY any "getting-off" place. Even to
say "A change of plane" would do it, does not satisfy my
thinking, for those "planes" however known or unknown, have their
own existence, persistence and inter-relationship with our planes
and other we yet do not know of, but which we may suspect are


DTB: What is "illusory" in concept is it also an actuality on
some other
plane of perception -- one from which we only secure an
"impressions ?"

JERRY: What is illusory is that very thing that has no actuality
at all.



NOT. My contention is that if it ever existed or if IT IS, then
we have some way of thinking of it and describing it to
one-another. It seems to me that the powers lf the Mind are not
limited by this sole level of perception and fragmentary memory
which we access when awake. There must be others. If the
CONSCIOUSNESS in us is one, then "it" pierces and observes all.
It is UNAFFECTED. If so why? And why does it have such a
quality -- where does that derive from?


DTB: I think you "got me wrong." I do agree that what we
name "spirit" and "primordial matter" are both sides of the same
coin. This to me implies a third factor -- THAT SOMETHING
PERCEIVES THEM. Is that not the MIND, of whom one power is
perception, memory, comparison, logic, reasoning --- right up to

JERRY: If so, then mind can be neither matter nor spirit. So
then, what is
it? I can't conceive of anything at all that is neither material
spiritual or some mixture of the two.


NEW DTB How about the ABSOLUTE -- the
indescribable root ?
I GUESS THAT mind derives directly from THAT and hence it can
perceive the interaction of these dualities.

Let me offer the following for your consideration:

"Esoteric philosophy shows only physical man as created in the
image of the Deity; but the latter is but "the minor gods." It
is the HIGHER-SELF, the real EGO, who alone is divine and GOD."
(S.D. I 445)

1. "Mahat-tattwa creation...was the primordial self-evolution of
that which had to become Mahat-- the divine MIND, conscious and
intelligent;" esoterically, "the spirit of the Universal
soul....THAT then precedes the manifestation. ... Mahat, active
intelligence or the operating will of the Supreme...the operating
LAW. ... the Infinite having no connection with the finite--can
neither will nor create; that, therefore Brahmaa, Mahat, Iswara,
or whatever name the creative power may be known by, creative
gods and all, are simply an illusive aspect of Parabrahmam in the
conception of the conceivers." (S.D. I 450-1)

"esoteric doctrine teaches that the Dhyan Chohans are the
collective aggregate of divine Intelligences or primordial mind,
and that the first Manus--the seven "mind-born" Spiritual
Intelligences--are identical with the former. " (S.D. I 452)

Does this clarify my point ? I really don't want the
words to sere as barriers. I am looking for the inner


DTB: 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

JERRY: Buddha did not believe in life-atoms or in partless
particles, alias
monads, at all. What exactly are these life-atoms? Aren't they
Monads? Could
it be that they are already, in fact, perfect and eternal and
and that we just see them 'as if' they were in need of evolution?
they are already perfect, and it is our perception of them that
is immature?


NEW DTB I am not so sure as to what Buddha "believed in"
All we have to go by today is a record of what someone said he
SAID. There is also apparently his "secret teachings" of which
no total record is so far found. If, as Theosophy claims, the
Buddha was at that time, and for his people and the cycle, the
exponent of the "Sanatana Dhammo" -- the Perennial Philosophy in
His day and time -- he not only spoke metaphysically but
performed acts that were practical applications of the ethics
supported by those metaphysics. Thus Ideals, motive and practice
were always placed in line by Him in his life and teaching.


DTB: As far as I know the "shistas" are the "seeds [of
Karma]" they are in effect the CAUSES of rebirth and of all the
many components (sheaths, vehicles, etc.} of the PERCEIVER
Soul ? Ego ? )

JERRY: I have never come across the word in my study of Eastern
but found them fully described by Judge and later by G de
Purucker. G de P
says "This is a word meaning 'remainders,' or 'remains,' or
'residuals' -
anything that is left or remains behind. In the especial
application in
which this word is used in the Ancient Wisdom, the Sishtas are
superior classes - each of its own kind and kingdom - left behind
on a
planet when it goes into obscuration, in order to serve as the
seeds of life
for the inflow of the next incoming Life-wave when the dawn of
the new
manvantara takes place on that planet." (Occult Glossary, p 157)


NEW DTB Such "remains" (are they not the
SKANDHAS -- SAMSKARAS ?) persist beyond the boundaries of the
Pralayas, and seem in re-manifestation, to form the basis for the
various planes and forms on this one, each set is associated
under Karma with a particular INDIVIDUALITY (or Monad). If each
is an eternal monad in its own self, then it will not and cannot
be destroyed, but persists. Can we not look on the manifested
Universe as an objective proof of the indwelling forces and
purposes, which enliven it from within?


DTB: Theosophy does not ignore it, And like Mahayana it seeks
to investigate and define it. If these teachings are age-old,
then the Buddha knew them well indeed, but he did not say all he
knew publicly -- as in the case of the wandering monk
Vacchagotta -- and his explanation to Ananda which followed the
encounter. [ see KEY p. 81 ]

JERRY: Buddha taught various levels of teachings to various
levels of
students. I think that Blavatsky did the same thing. Where does
teach anything about liberation (moksha)? Where does it teach
that karma
itself can be eliminated through karma itself? Where does it
describe a
Path that leads beyond suffering?



NEW DTB I find this teaching implicit in all the
Theosophical teachings but particularly in THE VOICE OF THE
SILENCE. If the Buddha was and is a "Theosophist," then why
would be ignore this concept. He may have phrased it differently
The elimination of personal Karma implies (to me) a search for,
and an understanding of its causes, and a strict attempt to avoid
creating new "bad causes" such as will delay and defer individual
In this I do not mean to imply that incarnation in and use of a
physical (and other vehicles also) body is done for the "pleasure
and ease" of the Kamic Nature ( the Self that generates and
enjoys pleasure, rest, isolation, -- all those qualities and
attributes that relate to isolating ones' self from the pains and
sorrows of one's environment).

Since the Incarnation of the HIGHER SELF -- and of its KARMA
(primordial Root-Matter) involves all kinds of relationships with
other beings of similar potential, the adjusting and harmonizing
of those in their fullness would alone create conditions that
permit a "retirement." But, as I see it, such a retirement has
only to do with ones emotions, desires and passions -- and
therefore the "moksha" would be temporary also.


DTB: I would also ask: "Liberation? For how long? Is that
possibly an
"illusion," a "maya" also ?

JERRY: Liberation, by definition, is seeing through illusion. It
is the
ability to see what is really going on.


NEW DTB That is descriptive., I don't think it relates to
either "Time" or to any future results or states, which might
supervene in the course of general progress. Theosophy is
interested in that.


OLD JERRY: There is no escaping. Liberation was defined by Buddha
as freedom
from suffering. So if you want to talk about escaping from
suffering, then

DTB: Exactly. But that does not give any answer, does it ?

JERRY: It gives me not only an answer, but hope. Theosophy, if
literally, gives me no hope at all and tells me that I have to
take rebirth
for the next bizzilion years, until the 7th Race of the 7th
Round, when I
suppose Gabriel will blow his famous trumpet. Moses taught an
doctrine offering no hope. Jesus came along and offered the hope
salvation. No wonder Christianity became so popular!

How popular do you think Theosophy will be when folks discover
that it offers no hope for
release from the Cycle of Necessity? I suspect that this is the
very reason
why it lacks popularity today, and will always do so until it
either dies a
natural death or begins to offer hope to people. Buddha clearly
taught that
a Path exists that will lead one to release from this cycle of

This Path is itself karmic - good deeds, pure thoughts, insight,
and so on
will cause this release as an effect. Why can't Theosophy see the
of this and offer something similar? I predict that the modern TM
will die
if this is not done.



NEW DTB I am not particularly worried about
whether the philosophy currently named THEOSOPHICAL becomes
"popular" or not. No new "church" or "society" is necessary. As
I see it Theosophy tends to awaken people to a sense of
responsibility and duty to others-- their family, community,
nation and the earth. First we have to acquire a concept of this
relationship, then of the laws (which Nature has already set in
place) . Finally we have to realize that we are able (and
should) be doing something actively about our own conduct as a
human being (in respect to our care for the "little-lives"
skandhas, monads, etc... placed in our care -- and with our
brothers the rest of the Monads, whether in human bodies with
human minds, or doing some other work in the great Harmony
represented by the single word: Nature.

I think it is more valuable to know whether or if it is CORRECT.

Don't you think that a correct understanding of the causes and
effects of one's choices under the LAWS of all Nature is valuable
(superior to the desire to get out of the turmoil), and leads
everyone to that liberation which causes non-attachment to
results. I mean doing things because they are right to be done.
I believe the Buddha continually indicated that "hoping for
certain results" was in itself a "bond."
We attach our desire to hoped for future results and when they do
not materialize we pass into a state of annoyance, sorrow, pain
and perhaps even retaliation against others (instead of against
ourselves -- who originally generated the karma that brings those
painful reactions.

"Liberation" from pain and sorrow is quite understandable. But
then it is selfish to the extent that we are careless of what
happens to others. As far as I can see that was not the way in
which the Buddha practiced his WISDOM and Samma Sambuddha.
It is noticeable in terms of example that the Buddha lived and
taught actively for many years after his "Enlightenment." What
"darkness" was removed? If that can be answered, perhaps we may
view ourselves in those terms, and decide what we need to change
in our own personalities. If we "accept" any event joyful or
painful with equanimity we will be able to stand any kind of
shock. We will proceed with our duty regardless of hopes or
anticipations. I would say that over half our sorrows and pains
arise because we anticipate the "worst."


DTB: Blame does not explain. Errors in explanation can be
straightened if one goes to the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of the Masters
and H.P.B. -- as I see it. I seek to understand your point of
view especially when I read in S.D. II (bottom of page) that many
of the Egos returning into incarnation are named "returning
Nirvanees." [ I think in the S.D. Vol. II that pages 94-5 and
109-10 have a relevance to this.

JERRY: Dallas, let me once again say that liberation is NOT
nirvana. The
Mahayana teaching is that all nirvanees will sooner or later have
to return
to continue the Path (this is NOT the teaching of the Hinayana,
who view
nirvana as a permanent condition). I personally agree with the
Mahayana, and
that nirvanees do have to return. But why must they return?
Because they
have not yet been liberated/released.


NEW DTB Why would the idea of self-sacrifice be
repugnant. Pity for the world of deluded mortals -- is the way
Buddha expressed it. He sacrificed himself. Also look up S.D. I
pp. 207-210 on the portrait offered of THE GREAT SACRIFICE given
there. Seems to me the Buddha fits that. It also seems to me
that we all have the same quality of BUDDHI (Wisdom) innate in
our Spiritual selves. What is it that obstructs it? Is it
Passion, desire, fear, ignorance? Do we not create our own


DTB: I do not locate them "in" the body, etc.. I would say
that the PERCEIVER uses those 'SHEATHS - BODIES - VESTURES' as
vehicles and tools for its perceptions. But what does it have to
do with those truly "illusory - mayavic" events?

JERRY: Who is this "perceiver?" On each of the 7 planes, we have
subjective self and an appropriate vehicle or body. Pure
consciousness is
the real Perceiver, and its rays or expressions such as the
Ego and atma-buddhi are temporary illusions.

DTB: Unless I and Theosophy are much mistaken, the reason for the
incarnation of the PERCEIVER -- SELF is to assist in the
development of a similar capacity of perception in the "monads
that have less experience." It is a service, a gift, of time,
energy and wisdom. The gift is offered when the composite
"mirror" intelligence, projected by the immortal and permanent
EGO, currently active in the Personality and the "brain-mind,"
(the Lower-Manas) asks and seeks for the truth as recorded in
that permanency of experience we call BUDDHI-MANAS (vehicle of
the ATMIC "RAY") I am aware you may say these are all
impermanent and mayavic -- as you said before -- but that does
not give a reason for their existence and activity, does it ?

JERRY: This is a noble perception of things, but I don't think
that this is
what is really going on. You are still talking about a linear
evolution in
which unconscious "lesser" monads grow and mature and evolve into
self-conscious "greater" monads. You cannot answer the question
of where
these unconscious immature monads come from, any more than
science can tell
us where the original ball of dense matter came from that
exploded during
the Big Bang. Linear progression always has the inherent problem
of origins,
and this problem has no logical solution. God made it, or
divinity made or,
or Be-ness made it, and so on are not really answers, just like
"it is
mystery" is no real answer. Why not? Because then we would
question why did
God/Be-ness not just create his monads perfect to begin with? And
question also has no logical answer. Why no answer? I submit that
because linear evolution is not what is really going on.


NEW DTB Linearity is only conceptual and in fact
is quite impossible. Let's look at symbolism for a moment :

ONE is usually a DOT on some planar background. It attempts to
indicate undifferentiated and indescribable BE-NESS -- the
ABSOLUTE, the ONE SOURCE -- the WHOLE (unmanifested)

WHEN MANIFESTATION OCCURS it is not "creation out of
nothing" but a re-objectivization on many planes of the forces
and beings who participated in an earlier UNIVERSE. Karmically
the LAW which is ever undefinable but always present (CAUSELESS
CAUSE) resets the limits within which all manifestation rebegins.
The Universe awakes and simultaneously on every plane there are
individual and personal awakenings. Again the UNIVERSE is
filled with MONADS -- each the "mirror" of the ONE ONLY MONAD
(always awake -- S.D. I 27) PHYSICALLY there is not BIG BANG.
Metaphysically the sphere/plane of Universal consciousness alters
from "sleeping" to "waking." {This is condensing the process in
terms of description -- which is detailed in S.D. Vol. I }
S.D. I 4-6 for instance: )

ONE alters when it is considered as a starting point upon
MANIFESTATION (re-awakening). This is no longer "linear" in
concept but immediately changes to a "volume," or a simultaneous
sphericity, or SPACE wherein on various planes and divisions
(according to individual Karma) CONSCIOUSNESS begins to operate
independently, individually and, as well, conjointly again.

[ Without these comments the symbols in themselves tend to

But in reality (linearly and diagrammatically) it is a triad:
1 - background; 2 - CENTER, and 3. - circumference. One may
place it on a "plane." Or if one desires a SOLID, then by adding
one more DOT either above or below the selected plane one
constructs OUT OF 4 TRIANGLES a space as enclosed in a TETRAGON.
Or taking the CIRCLE one rotates it along any chosen DIAMETER and
the movement of the circumference through non-manifested SPACE
produces the limits of a "known" Universe -- enclosing all the
living beings in it.

[ As I see it, this marks the whole difference between
the Occult and the Physical Sciences and materialistic

The symbols ( S.D. I pp. 4-6) are not limited but suggestive of
The fact of this being a living universe and NOT a congeries of
units of "dead" matter makes the difference. Nothing occurs by
"chance" or "luck," in the occult Universe everything occurs
under LAWS -- immutable, impartial, ever-acting, but only clearly
perceptible to the awakened SPIRIT in man's CONSTITUTION --- that
is because Man's SPIRIT is ONE WITH the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT. Man's
Monad is one with the UNIVERSAL MONAD. ]

CIRCLE without central point is sometimes taken to be ONE -- also
a single LINE. These are LIMITED and indicate "manifestation."

DUALITY or divergence implies some polarity which emanates from
the ONE. Usually drawn (planar) as a DIAMETER to the manifested
and limited CIRCLE

Sometimes like a compass 2 lines emanate from a point (DOT) and
are infinitely extending from the point of divergence -- as a
symbol this does not confine anything or indicate anything but
difference which is undefined (in terms of our embodied minds)

If a 3rd line is introduced then a TRIANGLE is formed. One might
use it to indicate a balance of, say, SPIRIT, MATTER, and MIND
(which being independent of all but the DOT, serves as an
intermediary to observe the interactions of SPIRIT and MATER.

If 2 diameters cross in the circle at right angles the concept of
4 arises (also 7) as the 4 divisions of manifested space on a
plane, the dot, the circumference and the are circumscribed --
always the "background" remains as a basis for periodical waves
of manvantara followed by pralaya or -- reincarnation for all

I am sure you know all this as well as I do, but only introduce
it here because of the focus to our discussion.


DTB: Merely locating them in "Globe D" does not help me.

JERRY: HPB locates them on Globe G, not Globe D which is our
Earth, if you
look closely at her hints.

DTB: Everything in the present cycle manifests through that
density of substance. And as I see the SD teaching that this
"dipping" of
the SPIRIT into this grossest of "matter'
conditions, is not for its benefit, but for the help that can be
extended to the intelligences that are currently closely invested
with the quality of present material life and work, I would call
that activity one of sacrifice and altruism.

JERRY: I would call it that too.


DTB: Thanks, regardless of how or where we characterize
purpose, intelligence, progress I find the Buddha always
expresses the concept of PERFECTION. IMPROVEMENT -- the "PATH,"
and the "NOBLE 8-FOLD PATH" of practical virtue is to me evidence
of that -- and in all the impermanence you sense there is always
the glimmer of PERMANENCE -- or the various levels of
"impermanence" would be unable to place any comparative values on
their existence, purpose and achievements.

JERRY: Absolutely agree. Yes, there is perfection, and I think
that I have
glimpsed it myself. But the glimmer that I saw was not some
future condition
that I will attain by reincarnating through this manvantara, but
rather what
is going on right now.

DTB: I do not think these are useless discussions of
irrelevancies. If we
have terms for them, then these discussions have been conducted
my others in
past eras -- and I would assume that the Buddha achieves the
respect we all
offer him because He KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT -- and
expressed what he
could in terms we might begin to understand.

JERRY: I also think that Buddha knew what he was talking about.

DTB: I would venture to say that this type of search tends to
raise our own
level of thinking -- but I do not have terms to define that -- so
mention of GLOBE D is for me merely an indication of a general
period in
time and progress defined by some qualities that envelope us all.

JERRY: I agree that we cycle through each Globe in certain time
periods, and
that we do progress through our experiences. Our disagreement, if
any, comes
into play with the result of all of this evolution. D. T. Suzuki
once said
that when we at last come to see our Original Face, we will
confront the
Ultimate Joke in that this face was always right there and never
changed a
bit during our long peregrination, and that all we really had to
do at any
time was to open our spiritual eyes and see it. I agree with


DTB: I believe we are all BUDDHAS in our highest and most

JERRY: Agreed.

DTB: The Buddha, Gautama, is one who realizing this
has so disciplined (see the Jataka stories) his life and motives
that ALTRUISM and TRUTH alone serve to guide his work, life and
teachings. HE is truly an IMMORTAL -- and as I think you rightly
surmise, the physical frame HE used is one so purified that his
SPIRITUAL PRESENCE could use and live in it and serve as a bridge
for contact with ordinary mortals. Certainly his example and
words have inspired a great section of humanity for many
centuries. Yet, he never founded a "RELIGION." He came as a
teacher, and he was a reformer of Hinduism, which had become
degraded by the brahmins who used the powers inherent in the
ancient teachings to obtain authority and rule arbitrarily and
for self-interest over the poor, the uneducated and those
incapable of thinking for themselves of their time. if a
religion subsequently developed it was those who followed who
devised rules and strictures and codified its beliefs.

JERRY: Agreed. Actually the first sutras containing his words and
were written over 300 years after his passing, which alone
indicates the
lasting impression he made on people.


DTB	I was told that the first ASSEMBLY took place a year after
his DEATH and at that time the assignment to inscribe his words
was made. The DHAMMAPADA was compiled from those statements that
EVERYONE AGREED were his actual words. The various Suttas,
Jatakas etc... were all produced in due course by his disciples
either singly or in consultation with one another.


DTB: I don't think you quite get my drift. The physical and
scientific views are well known to me in regard to the phenomenon
of matter - the whirling of sub-atomic particles, atoms,
molecules, etc... But the facts and descriptions fail to define
the CAUSE.

JERRY: Science says that the cause is energy and the fact that
Nature abhors
a vacuum. Theosophy says that all physical particles are
expressions of
astral particles, which in turn are expressions of mental
particles, and so
on up the chain.

DTB: Our science limited by concepts of solidity and stability
are so far
unable to define cause, reason, purpose. So they have
declared for the past 150 or so years that phenomenal matter
developed (somehow) its own forms and conditions -- blind forces,
blind laws, no purposes, etc... and that leads no one to any kind
of understanding of basics.

JERRY: Agreed. They are currently wrestling with consciousness
and how the
brain is somehow its cause. Brain as cause and consciousness as
continues to elude them. Certainly the brain-mind has a
relationship, but science has not yet observed the subtle mind.

DTB: Theosophy and the Buddha also started with the Spiritual
existence, and with the Karma that was generated by the Egoic
center of
every living being -- that which gave it its temporary or

JERRY: Agreed.

As far as I can understand, Karma, Life, Existence are all
aspects of one invisible and undefinable REALITY -- or they would
not be of tangible perceptions. Nor would minds seek to
understand their origins -- being satisfied that they existed --
and somehow managed to co-exist.

JERRY: I don't see karma or life or existence as being aspects of
reality so
much as they express themselves as an appearance of reality. Life
subjective. Existence is objective. Karma is the interconnection
between the
two. I also would question your assertion that tangibility is
some kind of
proof of reality. Our physical senses are deceptive and do not
show us what
is really going on.


NEW DTB	Would not "tangibility " be on several planes invisible
to and within the physical? For instance the Mind does not
require solely the physical base to investigate, think and
imagine, or remember.


DTB: The fact that accidents, the various conditions of birth --
some of
which seem to distort (without obvious reason) an individual's
abilities and
opportunities, and unexplained changes of fortune, which
apparently do
occur, (and remain inexplicable -- as chance, luck, etc...) has
thinkers to consider the potential of an EGO which bridged the
gap of death
and to which the Karma of an INDIVIDUALITY was attached, and
followed its
new location in a fresh Personality.

JERRY: But is it necessary to postulate a permanent carrier? Why
can't one
life simply cause a new one?


NEW DTB	From all I can determine there is a Nidana -- a link --
of some kind between our "present" and the "past." I seem to
detect this as a sine qua non in all the Buddha said.


DTB: As I see it, reincarnation is the continuation (under
personal and
Individual Karma) of a long series of lives strung as pearls on a
string to
the thread of individual spiritual existence, which from time to
time uses
bodies. The problem then arises: why would something so WISE as
a Buddha
(or the ATMA) have anything to do with a physical body -- so
limiting and

JERRY: I agree except that I don't believe that "individual
existence" has any more reality to it than does individual
existence. I think that both are conventional realities.

DTB: Why does the HIGHER MANAS work to frame a mirror of itself
in gross
matter and endow it potentially with almost god-like powers ?

JERRY: Perhaps its because manas is a reflection of spirit which
is a
reflection of divinity, and divinity is self-expressive?


NEW DTB	I do not seem how this explains it. The CAUSE seems to
be missing.
Why is there anything ?



? Best wishes,

JERRY: I think that real self-sacrifice comes about when we cast
aside the
idea of a separate personal self altogether.

DTB NEW	agreed

Jerry S.

You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
List URL -
To unsubscribe send a blank email to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application