Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00091)

Tuesday, June 26, 2001


Dear Mark:

What, finally is the Self?

I see two. They are divided by the difference between the
UNIVERSAL and the SELFISH PERSONAL. Like "Father and Son" they
interplay and to some extent reflect each other. But the whole
effort is for the "son" to endeavor to become like his Father --
a wholly conscious DIVINE BEING with duties and the wisdom to
perform the accurately.

In our bodies and the "lower principles" we are limited by this
life's experiences, potentials and memories. They are limited,
fragmentary, illusory often, and rarely exceed the limits of this
life. Theosophy extends this consciousness forward and backward
do that we as IMMORTALS have a reasonable basis for considering
this proposition. Otherwise our life and evolution has very
little meaning.

But there is something in us that raises the threshold of
comprehension and perceives permanence in universality and
impersonality -- and responds to the idea of a SPIRITUAL UNIVERSE
that encompasses all beings. Could it not be called the ONE
CONSCIOUSNESS -- which has the power of piercing up and down the
7 planes of being and keeping a central register (so to say) of
all experiences that are had there ?

Further it views Law, cycles, evolution as a cooperative affair.
And if to this is added the concept that WE as SELF and
EXPERIENCER or "WITNESS" never dies, then the reason of evolution
as increments of wisdom becomes apparent.

The Monad (monads) is / are SPIRITUAL ENTITIES that unite SPIRIT,
Matter and MIND in evolution. They are also said to bridge the
gap between Manvantaras, so that the progress of each Monad is a
"path" that can be "taken up" again.

MIND, or CONSCIOUSNESS seems to be the one factor that remains
unchanged and links the FOREVER PURE AND TRUE to the mutable and
constantly changing illusion we call our earthly selves and its
consciousness. To my understanding it is closely linked to the
ABSOLUTE and is therefore able to perceive the interaction
everywhere of the "play" between SPIRIT and Matter. If this is
denied, then the Theosophical philosophy becomes useless, in my
opinion.

These ideas to me are basic and serve to answer most questions.

I'm putting some notes below.

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Kusek [mailto:mark@withoutwalls.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 8:42 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Clarification

Dallas wrote:

> Yes Mark, rather easily, didn't mean to and yet it just "came."

Glad it came so easy for you. Write/post more.

> H.P.Blavatsky apparently desires us to understand that the
Monad
(which in us is the REAL MAN) is quite out of direct relation
with the
physical and astral vehicles.

All the vibrations of our principles vibrate in harmony within
us. These vibrations can be likened to sine waves. The mid point
of any symmetrical frequency or amplitude in a sine wave is
common to all the others and also to all coexistent harmonic sine
waves no matter what their amplitude or frequency. This middle
point is like a laya center. It can be contacted in meditation
and used as a "way" to ascend the scale of being. At least,
that's been my experience.

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

Dallas
Description understood. Midpoint if and when selected is
actually selected by WHAT in us ?

Ascent or decent understood. WHO or WHAT directs and guides ?

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


Dallas
> NO. I am of the opinion that ATMA is a direct emanation from
the
ABSOLUTE. AND ITS "thin veil of atmic matter" as you put it, is
MULAPRAKRITI -- or MAHABUDDHI. It is quite possible that we are
saying
the same thing but using different terms to convey our ideas.

MARK	Agreed.

> The most spiritual -- i.e., the highest and divinest
aspirations of
every personality follow Buddhi and the Seventh Principle [ATMA]
into
Devachan (Swarga) after the death of each personality along the
line of
rebirths, and become part and parcel of the Monad."

MARK Sure, as vibrational potentiality whenever manifestation
returns.


DALLAS
> How can this ever be done if ATMA is UNIVERSAL ? Is this a
metaphor?


MARK
What I am describing is paranirvana.

DALLAS
But PARANIRVANA is what essentially if non-material? How can it
be described except in terms of negatives.

I t is true one might claim to have been there and returned. But
then, Buddha-like qualities would be evident, would they not ?

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

> Even if They "go home" surely it is not "for ever ?" What
would they
do then ? I do not envision all this work for an eventual
"nothing."



MARK
I'm not saying that at all. The "going home" reference was a
metaphor. They have chosen to stay until the last sentient being
is liberated. This is pure Mahayana Buddhism. Then they too, can
enter the paranirvana that they have sacrificed while waiting for
the rest of us.

It's not forever. Just until the next manvantara.


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

DALLAS
Then this waiting will be eternal as every last MONAD would have
to reach their level. And, as I understand it there is a
continuous stream of incoming MONADS from the "Monadic essence"
[ S D I 619 ]


> "those who say, know not, and those who do not say, Know."--
is a
statement that remains paradoxical.

You can't say naught about "that about which naught can be said."
Your quote is Taoist, from the Tao Te Ching.
Didn't stop Lao Tzu or HPB though, did it?

> But, I think, the point to make is that they exist and that
individuals have been there and have reported on their
experiences
there.

So it's all right that other individuals have "reported" on these
existent states, but its somehow immaterial
and dangerous for you?


DALLAS
Yes for myself I hold it so to be. I must have a great deal more
information before I step forth into this kind of visiting. Also
I would have to have a very good reason.

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

> I am concerned when I sense the introduction of
non-H.P.Blavatsky
concepts, as they seems to interpose another level of thinking,
and even
to blur and obscure, rather than enlighten, for the reason that
their
introduction is often NOT logically explained. (At least that is
how I
feel.)


MARK
A bit rigid for my tastes, but I'm getting pretty clear by now on
your position. I don't believe that LIFE is bound by such
restrictions.



> Also since in writing I am "interpreting, I give my references
so that
the reader will find "safety" in going direct to original
sources.

What about the valuing the interior "Original Source?"

DALLAS
I don't understand this query. I choose the ORIGINAL SOURCE we
have through H.P.Blavatsky as the criterion we can best use. Of
course this does not preclude investigating thoroughly and
contrasting any philosophy, religion or tradition with
H.P.Blavatsky's Theosophy.

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

> How many of us reject study of The SECRET DOCTRINE because our
personalities are not 'attuned" to its method of presentation?

Agreed. Study is important. We all need to come to grips with the
body of cultural heritage and balance that
with the value of what is innate.

> DTB Re: "SOLAR LOGOS" If I recollect it was CWL who
introduced this term as more or less a substitute for a "Personal
God."
-- Possibly a supposed Ruler of our solar system ?] If that is
correct,
then It has no meaning that I (as yet) understand. Have you
found
H.P.Blavatsky using this term?

Yes, CWL did use it that way, he "christianized" just about
everything, didn't he?

In the ML is the passage that states that all of the knowledge
given through HPB was concerned only with (the Logos of) this
Solar System, and beyond that the Masters knew nothing more.

I can find it if you wish.


DALLAS It would help me if you can.



> DTB I do not "brush them aside. I have been a
science
editor for a long number of years (with the D. VAN NOSTRAND
COMPANY,
Princeton, N.J.) and am pretty well acquainted with the abilities
and
limitations of Science -- in so far as the INDIVIDUALS who claim
to
administer it as "REVIEW AUTHORITIES" are concerned.

The same can be said of "THEOSOPHICAL AUTHORITIES."


DALLAS
Exactly -- that is why it is best to have no authorities.
However for us, why not choose what H.P.Blavatsky and the Masters
have made available and see if we can build on that ?



> H.P.Blavatsky in The SECRET DOCTRINE set down those gaps and
inconsistencies in her days and since then, some have been
bridged, and
others remain sheer speculations and are unsupported by ALL THE
FACTS.
One cannot build an empire on flimsy foundations, and if you have
followed the many fresh developments since about 1895 on you will
notice
those which remain open. Would you like a list ?



I'm in complete agreement with you. There are gaps in both
Theosophy and Science to this day. I don't think ALL THOSE
MISSING FACTS stopped the progress of empire as far as I can
tell, though.




> DTB AGAIN -- where does H P B speak of a "SECOND
SOLAR
LOGOS " ?



Sorry, my fault. I was referring to the Second Logos, and
reminding (by parenthesis) that the Logos in question is always
the Solar Logos, re: the aforementioned ML statement. [ D WHERE,
PLEASE ?]


> DTB in that case FORCE FIELDS are --- what ? How
caused ?



The same way the "holes in space" are formed would be my guess.
Matter/Energy manifesting as one and the same thing.

DALLAS	AGREED, MORE OR LESS


> DTB Do you mean there is a miracle? NO, but there
is a
CAUSE and CAUSES? "spontaneity" needs an explanation -- Yes?

Does the CAUSELESS CAUSE count as a cause? Is that considerable
as a "miracle?"


DALLAS
No. I would call it KARMA in operation on a Universal Scale as
well as on the individual one.




> DTB I can conceive of an encasement but to call it
"matter" requires a great stretch. At some point they merge an
are ONE. In Manifestation, the veil of Mulaprakriti is, I am
pretty sure this "veil of matter" you speak of.

MARK	OK.



> Why should the ABSOLUTE and its ABSOLUTE
CONSCIOUSNESS/NON-CONSCIOUSNESS be excluded -- or, are they not?



HPB says that ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS to us is UNCONSCIOUSNESS.


DALLAS
Naturally as our waking, brain-mind consciousness is rarely able
to apprehend metaphysics.
Also we cannot defined UNCONSCIOUSNESS, can we?

The real problem is that in Manifestation, all beings had to come
from somewhere and have some reason for existing.


> I also ask is CLEAR PERCEPTION individualized as well as
UNIVERSALIZED ?



Probably relatively.

DALLAS	I suppose so, for lack of a better definition. However I
would never exclude KARMA or the concept of the IMMORTAL MONAD
see MAHATMA LETTERS p. 130)

Best wishes,

Dal


Regards,

-- 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