Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00052)

Thursday, July 05, 2001


Dear Jerry:


It is plainly stated as such in The SECRET DOCTRINE But besides
that let us look at it completely detached from that source.

Of course your and everybody else's ATMA-BUDDHI is
SELF-CONSCIOUS. It defines the MONAD, whether universal or
individual.

But the goal for the Personality ( the Lower Manas) that you and
I use everyday, is said to become SELF-CONSCIOUS as The universal
ATMA-BUDDHI of which you and I are a part is already from the
very beginning, whether in this Manvantara, or in some one far
remote in an incredible past.

I have no difficulty with that. ATMA-BUDDHI is the MONAD in
evolution. At least The SECRET DOCTRINE gives it that
definition.

It makes sense to me that the Monad out of evolution
(non-manifestation) is like a globule of mercury in a shallow
dish. In Evolution ( Manifestation) it becomes the innumerable
globules that can be shaken out of the central mass ( this is
only an analogy). And then they flow back to the center and
coalesce without trouble.

If however they are coated with ashes and dust and a little oil
they will refuse remerge, because the surface impurities set up a
barrier that individualizes and then personalizes them. They are
coated with the impurities of gross matter. In this trite
analogy, Evolution and Earth life affords the purificatory FIRE
which enables the pure mercury present in each of the coated
globules, to be sublimated and recollected in the coolness of
the neck of the alembic, whereupon all differentiation ceases,
and the gross residue of differentiation remains trapped in the
alembic. But Nature has even a use for this residue and strives
to purify it with the help of other globules of mercury which
take up that task again. This process is repeated again and
again (of course it is not physical substances we are dealing
with, but psychic astral and mental ones), until in its turn, it
becomes purified by the repeated process of contact with the
intelligence that mercury represents.

Well, what indeed is the purpose of life? Are we, or are we not
IMMORTALS as ATMA-BUDDHI? Do we incarnate for our own selfish
pleasure? Or do we incarnate for assisting in the process of
purification which other less learned Monads can adopt and work
towards on their own? The whole question facing us is : (as I
see it is) are we selfish or unselfish. Is SPIRITUALITY selfish
or not? Are we able to share our knowledge and wisdom
unselfishly with others? Will we make the effort?

I am not very interested in what the past schools of thought, as
interpreted for us today by the followers of a particular teacher
have to say (including Theosophy, and of course, what I myself
write) may have taught. The books and traditions handed down to
us either give exact and carefully preserve teachings and can
provide examples of success, or they cannot (and this may be for
various reasons, already discussed) I am primarily interested in
listening to ALL SCHOOLS and all "authorities" in order to seeing
if they are LOGICAL and provide adequate information which can be
used. Yes I have also seen and listened to the Dalai Lama. He
has a great responsibility. I would even beg to ask" In what
way are you, I, or any other person either smaller, equal to or
greater than He? He is doing his duty as best he knows and seeks
to be an example for others to use and adopt. So did Mahatma
Gandhi in his time, and I also saw and talked with him. These
are great opportunities. What we do with them cunts ultimately.
Neither Gautama Buddha nor Pythagoras wrote. Their followers
did. Yet the bright image of embodied truth remains shining to
this day. Krishna did not write, but the sage Sanjaya and Vyasa
heard and recorded.

The proof of any doctrine is in the ideas it contains and not in
any claims made for it or for an individual. I am more
interested in the DHAMMAPADA than in what Tsong-ka-pa, Nagarjuna,
Aryasangha, etc... wrote or said -- as interpreted to us by his
successors -- they may be true or false. The ideas behind his
words tell us all. We base our use of those ideas upon what we
know of the truth that is INTERIOR to us -- the "Heart Doctrine."


Their ethico-moral outlook (goals ?) is for me an important
matter. I mean by that the REASON why I shold do anything --
answering this letter is a case in point, as may be any decisions
any one makes at any time. Will it help or only annoy you?

I presume for myself, of course, as well as for my
interlocutor(s) the same capacity of comprehension, (given
adequate information) of (and on) any subject, science,
philosophy, religion etc... that may be placed in evidence.
Given time all can be grasped. If time, space and growth (motion
of some kind) are denied then the exercise is futile. Languages
words, phrase, and "authorities" are so much impedimenta, unless
they assist to a grasp of the final relationships that area part
of immutable law and truth. As to authorities, I am my own. Why
should I trust any one, no matter how much praise may be given,
unless I am able to debate face to face, or failing that, be able
to read and think over such conclusions as may be offered.

I do NOT try to be arrogant. Only, INDEPENDENT. As part of a
vast assemblage of beings, and an insignificant atom of
developing knowledge, I desire to know thoroughly before
accepting anything. Many are the experiences of others, and to
them, they are true -- their memory says so. The question one
would then ask after that : Is it the memory, that of a sage, or
of a fool, and a self-deluded person?

I desire to verify those matters that are offered intellectually,
and logically as a preliminary. Then I may adventure myself
further. Questions are always a basis for seeking such stability
as will afford a degree of certainty in the continual blur of
dynamic change. Once that is determined, then progress may be
made -- cautiously.

If I am a part of the VAST WHOLE, then I intend to participate in
that situation intelligently and with as much knowledge as I can
grasp I would refuse to accept an "authority" unless I had
tested their capacity for truthfulness, accuracy, and generosity
(universality ?) of thought.

What else can anyone who claims to have learned from Theosophy
do?

In all humility I say (and know) that there are vast regions of
knowledge and experience I have not yet been through, or met.
But being a questioner, I don't intend to abridge my capacities
by saying "fins," until that common sense be found, determined
and agreed on, as valid.? First I need to develop the tools with
which to think, and base myself on essentials which will enable
me to conduct any research I elect to engage in.

Let's look at "CONSCIOUS." As I see it, it is a compound word
consisting of: CON = "along with" and SCIOUS -- this, I see in
the dictionary, is derived from Latin: SCIRE = to know, to see
(as a science). So CONSCIOUSNESS is "to see along with
accuracy". -- Or, "to understand scientifically." Now it is
possible I have misunderstood your use of the word
"consciousness" and "self-consciousness" so I am dilating on the
subject (as I see it) so as to close some gaps.

Is there anything in this Universe that does not have this
potential? They may not exhibit it at present. But if it is
potential than by self-election and self-determination it can be
brought into use.

An atom has valiancy and other properties which distinguish it
from others. Randomness, and the laws of mass action do not
conflict but cooperate. Although we do not see it as our type of
"intelligence" there are inherent laws there which amount to
rudimentary intelligence and consciousness. But anterior to even
the atom is the CAUSE of it presence and its reason for
existence. If this can be made clear much of our difficulties
will vanish I think.

In other words any word has meaning, [but specifically in this
case CONSCIOUSNESS -- whether "self" or general] providing there
is a primary BEING, a secondary Being, and a panorama or action
which they can both look at and understand by some means of
intelligent communication -- shall we call it using a general
term: the MIND PROCESS (whether the intermediation of words is
necessary or not) If there are several beings and a plane or
scene to be surveyed, it would seem that bifocal vision of eyes
and of minds is useful and purposive.

Our Brain is a good instance of this: Both eye (if they function
normally together) report to the Brain and the ocular lobes
translate vision in both neural and electro-magnetic impulses.
These are first presumed to be translated into astral impulses in
the astral brain. These being further transmitted, are presumed
to impinge on a "screen" which the REAL MAN (ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS)
perceives.

This results in contemplation of several responses. Memory and
experience are consulted. A reference is made to Universal Laws,
if known to be applicable. At this point there may be
interference from the KAMA-MANAS -- the Lower Desires and the
Selfish self. This is where the Karma of our past may interfere
with clear and unbiased thought. One process or response being
selected, Karma attaches to it as it proceed downward into the
Brain to cause the basis for acts and words.

Next, we have to realize we are in the middle of a process
(Evolution: Universal and mundial) which are already under way.
We need to grasp the basis for that, and its methods of
operation. If we are in a dynamic situation what moves, and what
does not? What are the laws of an existing dynamism? Where can
they originate? How and who administers? What is our part? Do
we have one? Is it responsible? Does it demand comprehension?
Does it not imply self-consciousness of some kind ? Do we
cooperate or disrupt? How do we find criteria that are valid and
impersonal universal to use in any instance where action from us
is required?

Your propositions are to me very useful and thought-provoking. as
usual.

You say that great Buddhis authorities and teacher in several
"Schools" reject "consciousness." Is it possible that this word
was seized on inaccurately? Is the SELF described? I mean the
ATMA-BUDDHI. What are its functions in manifestation?

Best wishes, and

Thanks

Dallas

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 6:52 PM
To:
Subject: Self-Consciousness

<<<The purpose of living is to enable the MONAD ( ATMA-BUDDHI) to
attain SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS.

Dallas, I sure hope that this kind of stuff isn't Theosophy, and
I don't
know where you got this idea (I truly hope that HPB did not
actually say
such a silly thing). I hate to tell you this, my friend, but my
atma-buddhi
is ALREADY SELF-CONSCIOUS (and so is yours, your manas just
doesn't know it
yet), and yet here I am, going round and round anyway. It may
well be that
atma-buddhi gets self-conscious at some point by its
reincarnating "egoic
ray" (although I don't believe this). But I would never tell
people that
this is the "purpose of living" inasmuch as this tells me that I
no longer
have any purpose in life, which I don't find to be true.

While Tzongkapa and other Middle Way folks totally reject
self-consciousness
(without a self, how can there be self-consciousness?), the Mind
Only and
Dzogchen folks do subscribe to it. So far, my experiences tell me
that I am
self-conscious at ALL levels albeit the definition of "self"
(i.e., my sense
of identity) changes with each level/plane. I would love to know
how
something that is rejected as having no true existence at all by
many
Tibetan Buddhists, including HH the Dalai Lama, can be "the
purpose of
living" for a Theosophist? Interesting, isn't it?

There is a fascinating book out by Paul Williams called The
Reflexive Nature
of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamika Defence (Curzon, 1998) that
discusses the
whole issue of self-consciousness in Tibetan Buddhism, for anyone
interested.

Jerry S.