Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00207)

Dear Mark:

I am of the opinion that we will find it very difficult to
compare THEOSOPHY with BUDDHISM unless we can access the original
Pali texts (as we can THEOSOPHY in English, where it was
written) and compare them IDEA to IDEA.

Unless I am much mistaken the fundamental concept that we are at
base brothers in Spirit and experience as MONADS directly
emanated from the ONE ABSOLUTE.

I would say, this gives us a UNITY at the base of our natures,
that is only shattered and confused when, instead of using that
metaphysical fact, we think and then start from the limited
knowledge we have acquired in this incarnation, which may start
from various premises, and which may still contain (unknown to
us) elements of blind faith.

Added to this I find that we are all beset by a kind of "hope."
The hope is that someone has the secret and all we need to have
is the final formula. And I find that this is also expressed as
a hope that someone else found a short-cut we can use. If we
could adopt that, then it might save us the tedious amount of
time it takes to verify a proposition's accuracy. If we are
beset with impatience, and with memories of our earlier
education, which may have pre-disposed us to certain "beliefs"
(to accept or to reject) which still remain unverified. At
least I can see this in myself, and, since I have to handle it, I
suppose others have the same problem. Being impersonal and also
universal seems to shave off this kind of froth.

In any case, H.P.B. in ISIS UNVEILED spoke of pre-vedic BODHISM
/ Buddhism and explains this means WISDOMISM and no religion.
The Buddha did not come to establish a religion, but his follower
later on set one up based on brotherhood and compassion -- and
even that did not totally stick if we read the history of those
areas in So-East Asia which had been "Buddhist" for centuries.

It merely shows that anyone can misuse a designation. So one
ought to be most careful in using ancient texts to make sure the
reader understands the dangers and problems of literalism, the
"eye doctrine" and "Head-Learning." And of translators, who
cannot help but interject their brain-views in whatever they
offer. Take me, who likes to use quotes (and give the pages
where they can be found, the selection I make is a kind of a
"filter." )

Language assists but is also a barrier.

Thinking of the use of the word Buddhism. By thinking of the
"proponents of Buddhism," I would mean the esoteric kind, of
which THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE is a sample. They have no
arguments with THEOSOPHY that I know of. The VOICE shows how
practical BUDDHISM and PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY would agree.

As I see it the only arguments that remain to be considered are
based on our Lower Manasic (present personal brain-mind
apparatus) grasp of language and the possible / probable meanings
that words and phrases convey (after being translated -- by Who?
With what Motives ?) And that gives vast room for confusion and
pro / contra arguments.

But if we are seeking for the ONE TRUTH of things, then our many
paths converge and differences are all reconcilable. But each
has to be given the freedom to do that for themselves. No
agreement on "forms" ever stands very long. [ This is the
problem with the T.S. as an organization, and the T.S. as a
vehicle for the ever-living ethical practice of BROTHERHOOD. ]

LITERALISM is quite useless ( S.D. II 767 )

All good wishes,

Dal

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Kusek [mailto:mark@withoutwalls.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:34 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Some Musings

Jerry,

I've really enjoyed your posts of late and I sympathize with you
when
you try
to explain the more abstruse buddhist doctrines. There is a lot
of book
throwing and quote slinging going on here.

That aside, I'd also like to tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed
your
eBook on
the GV Universe model.
Thanks so much for taking the time to write all that stuff down.
I for
one,
really appreciate the study.

I'd love to see you write similar works putting forth your views
on both

"Theosophy and Buddhism" and "Theosophy and Jung."

Both of which subjects frame my questions for you in this post.

On the subject of "Theosophy and Buddhism" I'd like to ask you
the
following
questions:

1) Given your idea of the "Divine Monad" as a non-dual "Ground"
or
"Basis",
"source of both nirvana and samsara" (ie, time-space system of
your GV
model),
is it not possible that the appearance or manifestation of that
"Monad's

ray(s)" within the system can be likened to an abstract point(s)?

Further, I've heard mention in certain Buddhist teachings of the
idea of

"buddha seed(s)" or the 'potential of emptiness to realize
emptiness',
that lie
at the core of every sentient being. Could this not be the
terminus,
'ray-point' or 'ray-spark' consciously seen from within the
context of
the GV
system by an individual sentient being looking within?

Could not this abstract point be that around which the skandhas
aggregate?

Could not the whole presence of sentient beings in the realm of
the Gods
and
Demi-Gods (as depicted in the traditional Buddhist 'Wheel of
Life'
mandala) be
that they are all still identified with the abstract point as a
separate

individuality? Is that not the very distinction that defines the
difference
between a Buddha and a being still in these realms (whether a
dhyan
chohan, a
planetary spirit or what have you?)
'
I keep thinking about Van der Leeuw's book "The Conquest of
Illusion" in
this
context and his chapter on the 'Relative and the Absolute' here.
Have
you read
it (he asked book throwing)?

In that work, Van der Leeuw describes the beginningless and
endless
evolutionary cycle of kingdoms and individuals as nevertheless
taking
place in
the "world of the relative" and being distinctly different from a
'realization
of the Absolute'. This, he says, requires a turning within (ie,
away
from one's
'world-image') into and through the core of conscious identity
and a
crossing
of the Abyss encountered there into what he calls the "world of
the
Real".
Forgive me all these dualistic terms. This is why I usually
prefer
poetry!

Abyss. Emptiness at the core! Void/Plenum.

I think there is a lot of serious clinging to the notion of the
Individuality
of the Self or Ego (with a capital "E") as a glorious and
wonderful
thing,
without realizing that it too is, in the end, merely a mayavic
limitation on
the Empty Absolute, no matter how exalted. It's a way to preserve
the
notion of
a noble (re: relatively better than the personality but still
separate
and
distinct) holy thing to strive after. This is OK in and of
itself, and
will
lead to progress along the continuum in the "world of the
relative".
That
'progress', however, is unending. A "realization of the Absolute"
is
something
radically different. It is a departure from the "world of the
relative'
altogether, if that can possibly be expressed in words!

Not to mention the fact that all we can hope to do in the context
of
writing
these emails to each other is to utilize the mechanism of the
embodied
conscious personal ego to cognize all of this. Geez!

Anyhoo, any thoughts in response to these points?

--------

On the subject of "Theosophy and Jung":

2) I would love to hear your perspective on child development of
the
conscious
embodied personal ego from a synthetic
Theosophic/Buddhist/Jungian view.
Maybe
even throw in a little Object-Relations Theory.

For example, how would you equate Jung's notion of the 'ego-self
axis'
and its
terminuses to Theosophy, especially in its motion from
unconsciousness
through
a threshold to various degrees of consciousness in the normal
course of
child
development?

Jung speaks in some of his books about what he calls the "primary
ego",
or "ego
#1" or the "core ego" around which another, later, experiential,
personal,
historic 'second ego' builds up or (dare I say) 'aggregates'.
What is
this
(originally unconscious) 'core ego" from a Theosophic
perspective? It's
a
living thing in every one of us. It's especially pertinent since
it is
easily
accessible to direct experience once you turn within and get past
the
historical identifications you have with your current sense of
personal
identity.

How does the emergence from the unconscious of this body
identified,
conscious,
personal human ego (through a process, say, like
Object -Relations
Theory)
simultaneously also create the sense of "not -I" or "others" or
"the
world"
that Van der Leeuw characterizes as our "world image?"

Further, what, if any, are the Theosophical equivalents of the
anima/animus,
the shadow and the persona? What about the archetypes?

Finally, what of the Buddhist - Jung dialogues that have been
written
over the
years that have the Buddhists saying to Jung that even the "Self"
can be

transcended, that even the Jungian "Self" is empty of inherent
existence? What
is a Theosophical perspective on that?

I'm musing and skimming along several topics, but I thought it'd
be
great to
ask you these things.

Thanks,

-- Mark

Minor comments below:

> "If you examine this issue closely, you are led to the
conclusion that
the
> world that appears to you actually does not appear to anyone
else.
This
> implies that the world that each of us lives in is in fact
produced by
own
> own sensory awareness ... By the very process of purifying
one's own
mind,
> the appearance of the world is also purified."

As with the world, so with the sense of "I".

> The esoteric philosophy states there is no such thing as
"separateness".
>
> JERRY: THIS IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY!!! Why do you say this
and then

> insist on individuality???

Ouch!

> The belief in separateness arises solely in the consciousness
of this
'false personality'
> (kama-manas).

Does it? Remember, we are now in embodied, conscious 'kama-manas'
trying
to
cognize this.
Does not the belief in separateness arise simultaneously with the
sense
of
individuality?

> JERRY: The "belief in separateness" is a whole lot more
fundamental
than
> kama-manas and it starts with atma (and I believe that I am
speaking
here
> for ALL Buddhist schools). The whole idea of a Triad is a maya.
There
is NO
> duad and there is NO triad because all aggregates are unreal.
When
nondual
> BE-NESS first separates into Space and Motion for a manvantaric
expression,
> immediately we are in maya and just as immediately we have
> individuality/ignorance.

Given that HPB and the Mahatmas stated that all they taught was
in
reference to
this Solar System alone, we could say that we immediately (or
shortly
thereafter) also have multiplicity. Surely One Solar Logos is
"One of
Many".
Hence: individuality/multiplicity/ignorance arise more or less
together.
Is the
"One" ever One within the relative field of evolution except as a
collective?

I think the term "ignorance" can be troublesome to some when
applied to
higher
principles. It has some negative connotations in a relative
sense. It
seems
from some angles to be self willed, or at least agreed upon by
the
multiplicity
as a rule of the game.

The Hindu literature has Brahman, at creation, saying something
like "I
put
forth a part of myself and yet remain". The part of himself that
he puts
forth
(a unity in multiplicity) promptly forgets all about him! This to
me is
ignorance. Ignorance or ignoring? It's a paradox.


> Only indivisible (partless) monads are real.

Monads (plural?) - Perhaps in their intrinsic unity and emptiness
they
are
real, but are you saying here that they are also so as inherently
existent,
enduringly separate "individual units?" To my experience they all
are
One. Then
the One disappears. Then Mark reassembles and asks Jerry to
"please
clarify".
;-P

-- M






---
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