Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00069)

Monday, June 18, 2001


Dear Jerry:

Regardless of who said what (forget "authorities" and their
translators).

Let's look at IDEAS.

1. If there is a contrast of EMPTINESS and FULLNESS (or even
partial FULLNESS),

2. are we dealing with these as a spectator? Is our coherence,
reality and potential as a THINKER hereby established as an
incontrovertible REALITY and NOT AN ILLUSION ?

3. If so, then we are a 3rd PARTY to this and employ a faculty
which I might call CONTEMPLATION, or PERCEPTION.

4. May we not assume that we are not unique? If we exist, then
others must have the same powers we do and at least EXIST for
themselves as we do for ourselves. If this is false because of
illusion or Maya, then how is it we perceive the concept of MAYA
? Only the immovable sees the transcient? -- right ?

5. Does SUBSTANCE imply (represent) FULLNESS (of Matter) or,

6. EMPTINESS of Ideas and perception?

7. May I presume that SUBSTANCE is of various grades, from the
most tenuous to the densest in terms of matter, and from
UNIVERSAL SPIRIT to the smallest dot of PRIMORDIAL MATTER (as
say, in a MONAD ?).

6. Does PERCEPTION function whether there is FULLNESS or
EMPTINESS ?

7. In other words is it BEYOND those contrasts, being able to
"see" them both ?

8. EMPTINESS seems to us on the material plane to require a
container, as presumably the excluded FULLNESS is clamouring to
be let in -- is this correct? Is EMPTINESS the a symbol for a
concept that is not physical at all? If so why is the analogy
advanced?

9. By any chance is there a state of equilibrium between
EMPTINESS and FULLNESS ?

10. Are they on the same plane or on separate planes?

11. Is there SOMETHING which transcending both is able to
correlate and grasp their meaning? Is the purpose of Evolution
contained in such an answer? And if so, how is that defined?

12. Or are they the SAME THING (or SUBJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION
WITH THE MIND) as seen from different perspectives?

13. If so how are the separate "perspectives" to be defined?

14. Who defines them ultimately.

15. How do we get involved in what seem to be ultimates in
metaphysics.

16. Is there something in US which is of the nature of the
ultimate quality of metaphysics, emptiness, fullness, etc... so
that we (even as embodied brain-minds) might have a clue because
of a similarity, (or an actuality) in our own constitution, of
thought, consciousness, or intelligence ?

17. By any chance is there a difference in PLANE OF PERCEPTION ?
I mean does our consciousness, perceiving limits to this present
plane of material illusions, and limits in space, time and
motion, transcend those limits and perceive further planes in
which the apparent "emptiness" becomes a most viable "fullness?"

Please I am not being idly curious nor do I try to be
contentious, but these questions do arise and without being a
protagonist of any particular system, whether named to day
Buddhism (or one of its several "schools") or "Theosophy."

>From the most helpful analysis you have provided below, these
questions have arisen, as I think they may serve to make the
metaphysical and doctrinal concepts more practical as they might
apply to us if we become disciples of the Buddha's teachings --
and in the process have to understand the meanings as defined.

I think you have a great knowledge concerning the teachings of
the various Buddhist schools and I wonder if through that a
reconciliation can be achieved. Olcott may have been a
"Theravadist" -- but the principles he sought to use to unify
Buddhism, 120 years or so, ago were not limited to any one of the
Schools, but sought to pierce through the thought and creedal
barriers, of the definitions that those Schools had erected,
barriers that caused divergence, and bring agreement on those
aspects that were of common acceptance. Are you not specially
interested in such reconciliation and unification?

The authors of the MAHATMA LETTERS TO A. P. Sinnett claimed the
Buddha as their Patron (p. 48) and pay high respect to his
WISDOM. ( see also p. 54, 58-9, 96, 106, 110-1, 140, ) As I
said before if the great Buddha as Patron of all the Adepts
allowed this effort of the Theosophical philosophy to be
presented, there must have been agreement as to what and how it
ought to be done. I find great accord (in metaphysics) between
the two.

I am still puzzled as to how the TWO TRUTH cancel each other out.
To me they are supplementary and not mutually antagonistic. But
they imply the THIRD which synthesizes them all. The
transcendent is focused by MIND on the "substantial." The
process is explained by the use of the concept of the 7 planes in
Nature and in Man's consciousness.

If the view is taken that the SUPREME WISDOM of the Universe is
also focused and present in the least of the specs of PRIMORDIAL
MATTER, and that these two cannot relate unless the bridge of
consciousness implying a MIND is present then the process of
evolution, of Spirit descending into "Matter" and then following
this the ascent of INTELLIGENT MATTER back into the original
spirit from which it emanated becomes clear. The concept of
charity and compassion whereby wisdom incarnates in folly and
ignorance (Kama) becomes logical when we realize that on the 7th
(highest plane) Kama is called KAMADEVA (T. Glos. pp. 170-1) or
the instinctive LOVE of all things that unites them together with
wisdom, compassion and the power to live either in detachment or
in close union with the rest.

H.P.Blavatsky used a very telling analogy in CAVES & JUNGLES (TPH
1975 reprint) pp 336-7. A globule of pure Mercury -- liquid --
is placed on a shallow dish. Shaking produces a shower of
smaller globules, which returning to the center merge immediately
with the primary. Now if the globules are coated with a mixture
of dust, ash and oil, the surface impurities serve to prevent
their reemergence with the central globule -- they now repel each
other. If the impurities are removed (SUBLIMATION) the purified
globules readily remerge. In this analogy, it is to be understood
that each atom of Mercury retains its individuality while
existing in coadunition with all its brother atoms. The
illustration refers to our condition here and now, as well as to
Devachan and to Nirvana. I think this may be partially applied
to the FULLNESS / EMPTINESS problem.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 9:16 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Doctrine of the Two Truths

In a Snow Lion book (1992), THE TWO TRUTHS in the Madhyamika
Philosophy of
the Ge-luk-pa Order of Tibetan Buddhism, by Guy Newland, the
author presents
a nice summary of the Gelugpa teaching:

"An ultimate truth is an emptiness - that is, an absence
of inherent
existence (svabhavasiddha). Concealer-truths (samvritisatya) are
the bases
of emptinesses - that is, the phonomena that have the quality of
being
devoid of inherent existence:
The fundamentals of Tsong-ka-pa's interpretation of the
two truths in
Prasangika are intact in every Ge-luk-pa textbook on Madhyamika:

(1) The two truths are mutually exclusive. They are a dichotomous
division
of objects of knowledge, ie., all existents.

(2) The two truths, although mutually exclusive, are a single
entity because
emptiness (ultimate truth) is the mode of subsistence of
conventional
phenomena (concealer-truths).

(3) The term "concealer-truth" indicates that conventional
phenomena are
truths only for the perspective of an ignorant consciousness that
conceals
reality. In fact, conventional phenomena are not truths, but are
falsities
because they do not exist as they appear.

(4) Nonetheless, concealer-truths are objects found by
conventional valid
cognition, while ultimate truths are objects found by ultimate
valid
cognition. Conventional valid cognition is not superceded or
invalidated by
ultimate valid cognition.

(5) Concealer-truths cannot be divided into real and unreal
because they are
all unreal and false. However, they can be divided into those
that are real
in relation to a worldly perspective and those that are unreal in
relation
to a worldly perspective.

(6) Buddha Superiors are omniscient; they simultaneously,
explicity, and
without confusion know all concealer-truths and all ultimate
truths." (page
3)


It may be helpful, using Blavatsky's 7-plane solar system model,
to view
conventional truth (or concealer-truths) as everything within
samsara, the
lower four cosmic planes. Everything within the upper three
planes
(spirituality or nirvana) can be considered ultimate truths. In
this way,
every object on the lower four planes would be seen as an
expression (ray)
of something higher on the upper three planes. Now, HPB tells us
that during
the downward precipitation of spirit into matter, no plane can be
skipped -
and so everything on the lower planes has to be an expression of
something
on a higher plane even though that higher- plane something may
not be in
expression/manifestation. Thus even a rock has a manas, but it is
not in
expression. I think that if we can do this, we can make useful
comparisons
between Tibetan Buddhism and Theosophy.

We must keep in mind, here, that the above 6 principles are
Prasangika, and
are not all necessarily accepted by other schools/orders.

So then we can see that:

Point 1: the lower four planes are mutually exclusive from the
upper three.
This gives us some rationale for consideration of an Abyss
dividing the two.
It also may help explain why Blavatky chose to focus on only the
lower four,
leaving the upper three to our intuition.

Point 2: A central teaching in both Mahamudra and Dzogchen is
that samsara
IS nirvana and vice versa. It is our own misguided minds that see
them as
two separate things. This also is in accord with HPB's statements
that
matter and spirit are two sides of the same coin.

Point 3: This point equates with the "Mind is the slayer of the
real"
argument found in the Voice.

Point 4: This point addresses experience. We experience the lower
four
planes *as if* they were real, but they aren't as they appear.
When
conscious of the lower four planes, the upper three planes are
unconscious.
When consciousness rises into the upper three planes, it sees
emptiness as
real, and no longer is aware of the lower planes.
The reality of each plane can be established by a valid cognizer.

Point 5: Although everything on the lower four planes is
fundamentally
unreal, it appears as real and so can be considered as having a
conventional
reality (or an other-powered nature).

Point 6: As I have mentioned before, only Buddhas have the
ability to see on
all planes simultaneously. Such an ability is called omniscience
and is
harder to obtain than liberation from cyclic existence.

These are only scratching the surface on a comparison, but I
think it is
enough to show a great deal of similarity exists.

Food for thought.

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