Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00402)

Hi Jerry. I tacked on some more thoughts at the end. Thanks for taking
the time to respond.
----------
> From: Gerald Schueler <gschueler@earthlink.net>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: theos-l@list.vnet.net
> Subject: Theos-World Re to Bill - Propoganda
> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:42 PM
> 
> <<<<Hi Jerry. I have always enjoyed your posts. Another phenomenon I
have noticed is that when one discovers that "neither is true" one thinks
and writes as though "nothing is true." While "nothing is true" may be
true, it does not follow logically from what has been proven thus far. i.e.
that neither extreme is true. If truth does fall somewhere between
extremes, then where?
> Bill>>>>>>>
> 
> Yeah, the Buddhist view does sound nihilistic on first glance. However,
it is not. Even Blavatsky agrees that matter and spirit are two aspects of
the same thing and that this "thing" is manifestation, an emanation or
"radiance" or "ray" of divinity itself that Hinduism refers to as The Great
Breath. Thus matter-and spirit are two sides of mayavic manifestation. But
this only means that matter and spirit are illusions and that something
else is behind these illusions. That "something else" is the indivisible
Monad and divinity itself. 


> The Monad and Parabrahman, as Blavatsky defines and describes them, are
equivalent to the buddha nature and dharmadhatu of Buddhism. OK, but the
problem comes in when we try to define these two non-dualities, because
definitions are inherently limiting (if something is "this" then it cannot
be "that" and so on). So, when we try to define ineffable "things" we get
into reifications. Buddhism has this same problem, for example, when they
define the three bodies of a buddha, the tendency is to reify them. But the
indivisible Monad is not a subject nor is it an object nor is it a thing
that one can point to. But it is real and permanent and can be experienced
- it is usually experienced as a pure awareness with clarity and
luminousity but without "elaborations" (which is a modern translation
meaning without definable characteristics such as ideation or mentation of
any kind). It is poetically called a naked awareness, to distinguish it
from our normal subjective awareness.
> That which is real and permanent is hard to define in words, but it can
be experienced in meditation.

>From poetic standpoint I agree, however in discussions where logic is held
as the highest torch it is not logical to say that the Monad can be both
experienced and not experienced and all the while remain permanent
(unchanged). That which is experienced is changed. Even the vast ocean is
changed when a single measuring stick is inserted. One might argue that no
change in ocean temperature occurs if the stick were already the exact same
as the ocean, however one cannot dismiss the notion that the ocean is
displaced by the volume of the thermometer. This is the conundrum that
Peter speaks of where the best advice may be to resist the desire for
logical solutions. Much has been said in the past about coherent thought
being at least as valuable as logical thought. In fact about a year ago
you, yourself said that you didn't put all that much stock in logic. You
are of course clear in your presentations that you are attempting to help
others see the logical problems in their statements concerning what they
believe the truth to be. I contend that using logic as the measuring stick
to experience Reality is impossible. So why try? And more importantly,
from a logical point of view :), why try to help others think logically
about that which transcends logic?

> 
> My point on propoganda is that Theosophists can see it in others but
often miss seeing it in themelves. Blavatsky was a human being, and her
writings do contain a few errors and mis-statements as any reasonable
person would expect.

I agree. Each of our attempts to write anything contain a few errors and
mis-statements (most certainly including my posts). Still we try. Why is
that?

best regards,
Bill 


> Jerry S.
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>