Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00072)

Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Dear Jerry, thanks

Some notes below:

DAL

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:46 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: Doctrine of the Two Truths - Part 1

<<<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 ?>>>



JERRY: OK Dallas, let me address these ideas in my own words, as
I see it,
without any authorities. The contrast between emptiness and
fullness is
caused by dualism, which is caused by our own ignorance of what
is really
going on, and it occurs at the very moment when the One becomes
the Many, or
when the Monad becomes the Triad (self and world held together by
Fohat).

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

DTB "Dualism" of what ?

"our ignorance" seems related solely to the embodied brain mind
and not to the REAL MAN -- the Atma-Buddhi-Manas INDIVIDUALITY.
It is by definition universal and wise, and unlimited by the
walls of this present, incarnated mind, a projection from Buddhi
Manas onto the screen of Kama -- there Kama-Manas is formed --
and that is the resulting dualism of the MIND principles -- as I
see it.

'the ONE BECOMES THE many" this relates as I see it to the
primordial differentiation at the time when the UNIVERSE (as a
whole) emerges from Pralaya and begins to provide the "path" to
all the Monads towards their individual progress to SUBLIME
PERFECTION. Of course something similar occurs in Man when
viewed as a "smaller Universe" on its emergence from Devachan
and on its return to Earth life to pick up the Karma of its many
past incarnations -- the unfinished business we all are loaded
with.

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

Yes, we are a spectator in exactly the same way that we perceive
dreams as a
dreamer. The notion of a self as a thinker is pure manas, and is
a mayavic
illusion. I know this because in my mind I can go beyond
thinking, and what
I see there seems, by comparison, much more real and true.

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

DTB	Who or What is the SPECTATOR? If there is a PERCEIVER then
it looks down on MANAS and its works.

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


>From the perspective of atma-buddhi, manas is a restrictive
illusion.

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

DTB	If it as a "Tool" then it is subject to refinement and
shaping by the USER OF THE TOOL. And Who or What is THAT ?

To my understanding of theosophy, ATMA-BUDDHI means the Power of
UNIVERSALITY centered into the faculty of eternal, universal and
irreversible EXPERIENCE. Buddhi is taken to be by definition,
the primordial substance on to which the events of the "past" are
recorded -- i.e. AKASA.

If these distinctions do not apply then what is the use of making
them?

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

>From the perspective of the Monad, atma-buddhi is a restrictive
illusion. Knowing
this, my task is to relate these experiences with Theosophy to
see if HPB
was aware of it. I think she was.

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

DTB	I do not know how you employ the term MONAD. In The SECRET
DOCTRINE H.P.Blavatsky has employed the term MONAD tom mean the
ever linked and completely conjoined principles of ATMA (or
UNIVERSALITY WITHOUT LIMITS OR RESTRICTIONS) INDISSOLUBLY LINKED
with Primordial Matter ( BUDDHI or MAHA-BUDDHI )

Together, there is no limiting of perception implied, hence no
illusions, as we understand ILLUSIONS.

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


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

JERRY: Reality is oneness. In mystical experience, throughout the
centuries
of various cultures and genders and ages, everyone, myself
included, returns
to everyday consciousness (atma-buddhi-manas) with an
overwhelming feeling of
the oneness that underlies all reality. The sensation or feeling
of being a
3rd party is part of the "heresy of separateness" that exists due
to the
belief in a separate self.

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


DTB	To illustrate this H.P.Blavatsky employed an analogy of
liquid mercury placed in a shallow dish. When shaken the globule
breaks into innumerable other globules (or its COMPONENT SELVES,
MOLECULES, ATOMS, ETC.), and these, returning to the center,
coalesce readily and seemingly are a single globule again. In
the analogy offered, she states that if ashes, dust and oil are
sprinkled onto the globule and then it is shaken, the resulting
small globes (the smaller SELVES), coated with these combined
impurities, resist coalescing again (in this experiment on our
physical plane).

To permit their reuniting, the impurities are to be removed and
the barriers of an artificially created (ILLUSION ?) surface
tension broken down. Perhaps sublimation is needed for this (the
fire of earth-life -- in the case of the embodied Mind in the
present Personality, each containing a "drop" of the pure
ESSENCE), the separation by vaporizing the Mercury ,as a pure
essence, when this hot vapor is led back to a cooler surface
where it will settle and every atom will then be reunited with
its other "selves."

The analogy lens itself readily to an understanding of the return
to earth life of the Personality after the inter-life experience
of Devachan. Or, secondly to the entry into Nirvana of a
purified Soul -- its unification with the ALL, an its subsequent
re-emergence under Karma "when its stock of merit is exhausted."
It might also apply t the experiences of deep Meditation or
Samadhi and Turiya -- an embracing of the ALL and not loosing
ones IDENTITY I that experience. And, finally a return to the
personality where the stock of past Karma lays its heavy hand
upon us again.

No analogy can be pushed too far, but it is valuable that
H.P.Blavatsky offers this in a rather obscure place. In 1975 the
TPH reprinted HER FROM THE CAVES AND JUNGLES OF HINDOOSTAN. This
illustration / analogy using Mercury is offered there on p.
336-7. This particular fragment does not appear in the smaller
version of CAVES & JUNGLES that most of us are familiar with.

I would also observe that the TPH 1975 version (of CAVES &
JUNGLES OF HINDOOSTAN) does not include those fragments (of the
same series published in REBUS under the: pen-name she adopted:
RADHA-BAI -- these had been separately published and entitled THE
PEOPLE OF THE BLUE MOUNTAINS (This relates to her experiences
and findings about the Todas and the Mulla-Kurumbas in the
Nilgiri mountains of South India..)

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



<<<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 ?>>

JERRY: Here you touch on a very difficult point. Logically, if
there is no
self (atman) then why isn't the bodhisattva deluded when he/she
expends such
great effort to help others if such others are illusions? Well,
they aren't
illusions, rather they are all manifestations of Monads, and they
simply
need to be reminded of their true natures.

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

DTB	AGREED

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

I don't agree with your last sentence at all. In Einstein's
relativity, we are all moving, and that fact
is why everything is relative. I think that this is a basic fact
of life.
HPB says that Space and Motion are the first two dualities of
manifestation,
and so both of these form the fundamental continuum of each plane
in this
solar universe. The only thing that is immovable is the Monad,
which is
outside this continuum.

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

DTB	Whether in or out of our "continuum" or the present
parameters of Manifestation, would make little difference as I
see it. We are dealing with metaphysics, and the physics and
limits of this present material situation of ours -- where the
space between molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic components (we
are really dealing in our minds with evidence of 'force-fields'
here) may have been reduced, by Nature and Karma, so as to
provide what we call "solid matter." As a situation, this may
have little to do with the realm of pure ideas and thoughts.

What Einstein may have partially defined is the relation of
existing materials (in the context of "small" vs. "large" -- in
his search for a UNIFIED FIELD THEORY, -- to each other. And,
as I recall he had a well annotated copy of The SECRET DOCTRINE
on his desk. This volume, incidentally, was turned over by his
daughter to the Library at Adyar. Einstein had to deal with our
version of the "here and now" -- or his scientific
contemporaries, bound by those limits would not have understood
him any more than they would understand us in this dialog.

So let us deal wit the continuum, no matter how it is defined.
It is a continuum made up of basically, fields of force. But
this does not say anything, since the REASON FOR THESE FIELDS
seems dependent upon their CAUSE. And Theosophy states (and I
believe the Buddha taught this also), that INTELLIGENCE, and the
continuing CONSCIOUSNESS of an entity (with sentience on 7 planes
of being, if not 10) is responsible for the various "coats" of
matter (illusions if you wish) it needs to manifest and have
cognizance on any of the corresponding planes of a 7 (or 10)
fold Nature.

In other words a fragment of the ONE SPIRIT ( we are
"fragmenting this, in my case and level of understanding, only
to satisfy our concepts of material limitations (illusions), as
those fragments are at base UNIFIED and ONE WHOLE) .

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


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

JERRY: The idea of substance is a maya itself. First the Monad
splits into
self and other, or I and Not-I, and only then does it slowly
begins to define
each of these. The idea of substance comes from this defining
process. The
Monad cannot be said to have substance or to not have substance.
It cannot
be said to be One or to be Many. These are all rules of our game
of life,
and don't apply to anything outside of this game.

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

DTB	It seems that your and H.P.Blavatsky's definition of the
MONAD (as defined in The SECRET DOCTRINE ) are different. You
employ MONAD as a mathematical UNITY -- say THE ONE SPIRIT ever
undifferentiated, and whether in or out of the limits of a period
of Manvantara, or manifestation.

H.P.Blavatsky defines the MONAD as a COMBINED UNITY of polar
opposites: SPIRIT and PRIMORDIAL MATTER, whether on a Universal
scale or taken individually, as a base for our Individual
CONSCIOUSNESS and PRESENCE. She also considers this COMPOUND as
indissoluble and primordial. Hence the progress of the MONADS is
that of an "eternal Pilgrim." I believe from my reading of
Buddhist scriptures (in English translation--several versions),
that this concept was allowed by the Buddha and actually taught
by him, and certainly I am of the belief that He approved of its
use in Theosophical Literature (if He is the "patron" of the
Mahatmas and Adepts everywhere. I cannot conceive of original
theosophical literature being issued over the certificates of the
Two Masters as not having His sanction as well.)

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


<<<6. EMPTINESS of Ideas and perception?>>

JERRY: Ideas and mentation are located on the mental plane. When
we go into
the causal plane during deep dreamless sleep, we are then empty
of ideas and
perceptions. In meditation, beginners have to be reminded not to
slip off
into dreamless sleep, because to escape thinking and ideation is
not the
goal. The goal of most meditations is samadhi, which is beyond
the causal
plane.

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

DTB	have you had an opportunity of reading what H.P.Blavatsky
teaches in regard to "dreamless sleep" and its purpose -- I mean
in TRANSACTIONS of the BLAVATSKY LODGE (ULT) pp. 66 -78. or
BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH). Vol 10, pp. 252 -264 ? It is
most illuminating. The psychological study of sleep patters and
the common denominators of sleep functions along with dreams
remains more or less of a mystery to modern observation and
so-called "sleep and dream studies." There is far more to be
learned from Theosophy than struggling psychology has so far
gleaned without being able to use the concepts of the 7
principles and particularly of the dual Manas. Mr. Judges'
article THREE PLANES OF HUMAN LIFE, [PATH magazine, August 1888 ;
ULT Judge Articles, Vol. I p. 294] is most useful.
=
======================================


<<<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 ?).>>>

JERRY: OK. But there is a logical inconsistency if we let the
monad be
material, and Tibetan Buddhism challenges the doctrine of monads
on exactly
that ground. We have to let monads be non-physical if we want to
avoid
illogical consequences. What is "universal spirit?" Does the
descriptive
"universal" make spirit something else? I see spirit and matter
are the
duality of substance within this solar universe. Both are within
this
mayavic universe and neither exist outside it.

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

DTB	As I understand it, Theosophy never posited a "material"
Monad. The Interlocked speck (a bad word really as it is
non-physical) of SPIRIT and PRIMORDIAL SUBSTANCE cannot be
material. At most it might be considered a specific FORCE-FIELD
among billions and quadrillions of other "force-fields." Each
represents a specific entitative existence since the beginning --
vague as that may be -- as an "eternal Pilgrim" working its way
through matter, time, space, limitations, illusions, and finally
returning to the ONE UNIVERSAL SELF as a purified spiritual
INTELLIGENCE fit to be ONE WITH the ALL-SELF.

As I understand it, no entity at the 'rarified level' of SPIRIT
AND PRIMORDIAL SUBSTANCE is anything more or less than PURE
INTELLIGENCE an because of this it is instantaneously linked (at
that level) with all INTELLIGENCES -- including the HIGHEST, or
the UNIVERSAL ONE SELF.

I do not think one can designate SPIRIT as "substance" in the
context of this Universe of ours. Even the idea of "Substance"
would be the primary CAUSE of what we call MATTER.

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



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

JERRY: Perception exists ONLY when there is fullness and
emptiness. These
are a duality, and you can't have one without the other. For
every emptiness
there is a fullness, and so on, because they exist in comparison
with each
other. In the same way that we have an I-Not-I-Fohat Triad, so we
also have
a perceiver-perceived-perception triad, and many similar triads
as well.
When we split reality into a subjective perceiver and an
objective perceived
with both sides linked together by perception, we are distorting
reality and
this distortion is called maya.

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

DTB	Fohat has been defined in The SECRET DOCTRINE as Intelligent
electricity or that which under Karma causes Life to spring
forth -- whether Universal or individual.

Where there is any "duality" their perception and definition is
ALWAYS a matter of perception by their SOURCE, or THAT from which
they emanated. To continue to perceive their modifications and
interactions (illusions if you wish) the SUPREME CAUSE emanates a
perceptive "agent." As I see it, this is the Universal Mind
(MAHAT -- the "great") which is independent of, and yet
interactive only as PERCEPTION, with both SPIRIT and MATTER.

To make this clearer (I hope) the ONE PRINCIPLE is ATMA (whether
Universal or individual) it is SPIRIT UNMODIFIED -- and to
interact with the privations that it "creates" so as to mirror
itself in them [and thus secure an "image (illusionary) of
ITSELF -- this is highly imaginary and suppositional of course].
This image's 'creation' as a beginning, cannot be defined in
terms of time as we measure or understand it. We are dealing
with mental concepts where our present perceptual limits have no
values or measurement.

Hence, The terms eternal, immortal and primordial, are used as we
cannot conceive of anything (with our embodied minds) that is
without some limits or beginning -- hence logically a
"substance," a form of some kind of matter, is envisioned. This
is indeed splitting our "minds" into two. One aspect is
transcendent, and the other is limited to the physical -- of the
here and now: we are most familiar with in waking
consciousness --what it may be on the psychic plane of dreams, or
the more 'spiritual' plane of "deep sleep" we do not yet seem to
have independent experience of, and the requisite terms to convey
the meaning (and partial memory of such an event) event to
others -- except partially, and with a great deal of difficulty.

Both "emptiness" and "fullness" are borrowed terms --borrowed
because we do not have accurate ways of defining those
conditions. For if you have "emptiness" you do not deny
penetration of an understanding CONSCIOUSNESS to that situation.
They reflect only what we are able to frame as approximate
descriptions on this waking plane. They are logical
necessities -- constructs which we also know are illusionary.
And yet, the REAL WE persists and transcends all limits and
attempts at description. As I understand it, this was what the
Buddha tried to depict. And this is what theosophists wrestle
with as do you also using the extensive knowledge of Buddhism and
what its several Schools have attempted to develop, as
assistance and process for the use of their devotees.

Whether these are accurate and reflect carefully and cautiously
what THE BUDDHA intended is moot.

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

(Something got lost here ) ...eeing one or the other or both is
all maya.


<<<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?>>

JERRY: Yes, the container for each emptiness is the physical or
astral or
mental object that we perceive via imputation. When we look at an
object, we
see parts arranged a certain way, and then we superimpose a
reality onto
that. If we enter a yogic state and look at the same object, we
will see its
emptiness - its lack of inherent reality. I like to think of
emptiness as
spiritual ideas. However, Tzongkapa warns that doing this will
make a
reality out of spiritual ideas, which are also imputational.


DTB	AGREED




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

JERRY: I think that there is always such an equilibrium going on,
but that
we don't always see it. The idea is expressed in the yang-yin
symbol where a
dot/seed of the one is placed in the center of the other.


DTB	YES, I see that.




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

JERRY: We usually think that matter is the substance of the four
lower
planes and spirit is the substance of the three upper planes, but
actually
spirit and matter are always together and are not two separate
things. So,
we experience dualities as separate things, but really they are
two sides of
the same thing.


<<<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?>>

JERRY: Consciousness transcends all dualities when it rises into
non-duality, which is outside this 7-plane solar universe.


<<<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 ?

JERRY: We are Monads, our essential nature is divinity. This is
expressed
downward into each principle on each plane. Matter is experienced
by us as if
it was totally different from spirit. Emptiness is experienced
differently
than fullness. But really none of these things are different -
the
experiencing of differences is maya.


DTB	I would agree with that, certainly.



<<<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?">>

JERRY: The physical objects are transcended in dreams. Thoughts
are
transcended in meditation. If we transcend the lower mind and
realize the
higher mind (buddhi-manas) then we might mistake that higher mind
for
reality because it is experienced as being more real than the
lower mind.
But when we transcend that higher mind we discover something that
makes even
the higher mind seem illusive by comparison. This transcendence
process can
keep on going until we run out of perceiver and perceived
altogether.
We can reach a point where there is no sense of a personal
identity, no
sense of anything at all that is not our own identity - like
looking at the
world as a reflection of ourself so that self and world are one
and the same
thing. There are no thoughts there, no ideas, no concepts, no
sense of self
or of other, and no dualities.


DTB	We do differ in this view as the foregoing shows both our
concepts.

And yet I perceive a greater degree of understanding that arises
as we proceed. Many thanks.

I can understand that the "personality" (going back to
H.P.Blavatsky's analogy) as the dust, oil and ashes on the pure
MERCURY limits the possibility of consciousness merging -- until
such time as those impurities are removed (by self-effort, and
the heat of study and application) But at some distant time in
the future I can also guess that the material surface impurities,
themselves being Monads at a lower level of progress, attain
eventually their own INDIVIDUALITY and power of
self-consciousness. If they are with us now, it is perhaps Karma
operating and they represent the 'dust, oil and ashes" of our
past misconceptions that today serve as our obstructors.

Best wishes, as always,

Dal


Jerry S.