Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00378)

03/21/2002 3:27 AM

Dear Jerry:

To me, humanity and Divinity are synonymous.

You cannot have logically an omnipresence of the ONE SPIRIT
without having humanity bathing in it.

Humanity (collectively and in its units) is a bridge of
intelligent consciousness between PURE SPIRIT and equally pure
but remote PRIMORDIAL MATTER.

The fact of our individual opinions concerning the nature of the
Universe and of man indicates to me a unanimity of experience but
a multiplicity of expressions concerning what we may personally
grasp and understand about it. Nor can our opinions be imposed
on others, but, they can only presented for consideration.



Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re to Dallas


<<Dear Jerry:
Let me try and answer your comments on the basis of my
understanding of Theosophical doctrines: >>

OK, but lets keep in mind that some of these "doctrines" are
shallow while others are deep.


DTB	AGREED.



<<<As I understand it, Theosophy is the root source of all the
various religions and philosophies that are available to us. It
is claimed by the Adepts, our elder Brothers that its tenets and
plans and laws co-existed with the beginning of present
manifestation, and in fact extend far back into the night of
time, as our present Earth and Universe is but the reincarnation
of earlier ones, all following the same pattern and objective:
the development of the independent Intelligence we call HUMANITY
in its units.>>>



I will never be able to accept that life and manifestation are
all about developing humanity. This seems patently conceited. Why
can't deity just go ahead and make humanity if it wants to? Why
does divinity need humanity? And in any case, Dallas, human
beings are mayavic and have no real inherent existence.



DTB	In that case why do anything? why bother about our
philosophical delving and mental research? The maya is in
supposing that we are not REAL, that we are not SPIRITUAL IN
ESSENCE. Yes we use continually changing and altering VESTURES.
But we the ONE SPIRITUAL BEING we are invariable and constant.
You may because you like the concept of variability like to
consider yourself an illusion. I know that in my INNER and
HIGHER SELF, "I," the thinker, the willer, the investigator -- am
not an ILLUSION.

To me it is not conceit at all to speak of facts. From the point
of view of a "personality" it may appear conceited. But in fact,
all personalities are more or less on a level and the relevant
INDIVIDUALITIES tower and transcend those evanescent
personalities as their roots are in INFINITY and ETERNITY -- that
of the ABSOLUTE.



<<<Hence it is able to grasp the complexities and views of any
one of those systems so far developed from its basis, and refer
it to the primeval patterns from which those have emerged.>>>

It is the very emergence of alternative patterns in a wild dance
of dualistic attraction and repulsion that manifestation is all
about.



DTB	And the purpose is?



<<<This may not appeal to many, as their present embodied minds
have adopted one system and hold their views using that
terminology and processes as the only basis which they refer to
and have confidence in. Obviously there are going to be semantic
and logical differences, as one is, so to say, the "Mother," and
the other is the "Daughter.">>>

They would very likely say the same about Theosophists.


<<<So, as I view the teachings that Theosophy advances, I seem to
see: We either accept and use the concept that we are at our
CORE an
IMMORTAL BEING (obviously a force, a power, and a non-physical
"something") or, we are not.>>>

Our inner divinity, our "immortal being" is not a "something" at
all. To think that it is something is itself a reification. To
think that it is nothing is nilhilism. Something and nothing are
two sides of the same dualistic coin, and both side are
transcended in non-duality. Your assumption here is that our core
is dualistic, and I do not agree with that assumption.



DTB	It is precisely the non-dualism as a point of departure as
well as of current reference that I am sure of as MYSELF -- I do
not mean this transitory body nor brain, but the inner, the
CONTINUOUS SELF.



<<<So you see, to me, Theosophy
envisages a continuity of many such life-time experiences under
different times and language conditions, but with the same
universal and impersonal ideas at the study core of experience --
which is uniform in curriculum for all.>>>



OK, but lets remember that its all maya. This reincarnation
business is conditional reality and is not ultimately real at
all.



DTB	I never claimed that any incarnation was "real," except in
the sense that "reality" is a fact to those who dwell in and
accept its limitations.

I also did not agree that "maya" was anything but a condition, a
passing one of course, to which our immortal Mind is subjected
when and while it animates the animal brain and embodied mind of
any one incarnation. But as we have many incarnations there is
THAT which unites them all.

You and others may deny this as a concept, but that does not
abolish it. It may do so for you, but then there are others who
claim (and I one of them) that logic demands a continuity that
extends far beyond the boundaries of our present-life existence.
And when death comes to the personality, what then? Poof ? The
Buddha never taught that.

However we are (in thought) capable of transcending those
limitations and envisage continuations, beginnings and endings,
however illusive and or indefinite as having occurred in some
continuum where a record is kept of such vents. Our own mental
and logical development demonstrates to me the actuality of
something that is neither mayavic nor temporal. It may be quite
indefinable, must as the ABSOLUTE in concept is undefinable, yet
essential to metaphysical thought and reasoning.



<<<If Karma and Reincarnation are accepted as working hypotheses
to investigate our presence and potential future, then the view
of the "one-life-time-only" vanishes, and is merged in the
ongoing series of experiences that link our "past" incarnations
with the "present one," and then, on into the future we are
creating for ourselves through our momentary choices.>>>



Reincarnation assumes a self to reincarnate, or at least skandhas
so that tendencies can reimbody. There is no self, and so
reincarnation is flakey. I am not the same person I was 10 years
ago or even last week. But because of memory I appear to be the
same entity going through a series of changes over time. This
appearance is mayavic and is what conditional reality is all
about. There is no reincarnating self because the Reincarnating
Ego is just another maya, a reification of conditional processes
and conditions. But reincarnation and karma are ok as shorelne or
exoteric teachings that address our conditional reality.



DTB	Your or my denial of the SELF does not make it so. it simply
serves to limit and truncate present thought capacity. The
"reincarnating SELF" cannot be "proved" non-existent. The fact
we ca conceive of it, and that the ancient WISDOM RELIGION does
is adequate proof to make us challenge such a concept in our own
thinking and minds.

How can one be progressive and universal if one closes the
windows and doors to more distant vistas. Those closure merely
show we desire to stay in confinement, and perhaps for company we
would desire everyone else to be also confined in such a peculiar
way.


<<<The evidence for this (I would say) lies in our individual
character and our talents, or lack of them. We are always an
"individual." and we have freedom within certain limits
,established by the continual interplay between our free choices
and the environment we live in, which has been largely shaped by
our past lives and the Karma thereof.>>>



If you honestly would take a hard look at your "self" you will
not find it. This has been demonstrated by Buddhism and Hinduism
both for centuries now. It was the central teaching of Sri Ramana
Marharshi, for example. Your statement "we are always an
individual" is not true, and is in fact, an assumption that you
are making that has no proof to it at all. Because of maya, we
seem to have a self. and this mayavic belief gets us human beings
into all kinds of bad karma trying to protect and sustain this
cherished (or hated) self. If Theosophy is indeed the parent
teaching, as you claim above, then why do you keep missing this
central teaching?


DTB	Nothing I can say as personal experience will prove anything
to any one. The only value for such a discussion as at present
is either to disagree or to look for ways of mutual
understanding. I close no doors. But I listen and watch for
those concepts that are broad and universal, impersonal and
encouraging, that give purpose and reason to our existence. And
I for one would refuse to limit my views to man made limits when
I am perfectly aware of other vistas beyond such limits, mental,
physical, emotional or otherwise.



<<<Let me put it this way:
Our World ( Earth) is like a School.>>>



Naive. This concept assumes that we are ignorant and need
lessons. It is just like Christianity which assumes that we are
all sinners and need salvation. You are turning Theosophy into a
religion, Dallas, or seem to be.


DTB	I disagree, nor do I turn THEOSOPHY into a "religion."
Inherently it is a philosophy and the accusation is one that is
quite untenable. Ignorance is not a base condition, it simply
means INEXPERIENCED. The Monad is potentially as wise at the
beginning of its pilgrimage as it will be at the end. It is one
of the fragments of the ABSOLUTE in manifestation and therefore
shares in all its potencies. Our self-conscious Mind is one of
the intermediate developments of this Pilgrimage and is acquired
as all Minds are by example and friction with other pre-existing
minds -- those of our parents and teachers in early life. There
is th claim in theosophy of an uninterrupted line of such
Mind-beings who always hand down and share the power of the
independent and free mental vision




<<<<On it gyrate, and appear time after time, groups of pupils
who use its class rooms (areas where they incarnate) in a cyclic
and regular manner by means of Reincarnation as a process, under
the Law of Karma as a basis for fair, strict, and impersonal
cooperative work and inter-disciplinary order.>>>





I agree with this, but do not agree with you on the rationale or
reason for it all, and because of that I can't agree with you on
the goal, let alone the Path. Reincarnation is not a Path. Karma
will never lead to enlightenment any more than manas will lead to
atma-buddhi. This is why I dislike karma yoga. It suggests that
reincarnation is a Path, that we simply need to learn lessons and
keep coming back until we pass all the tests. This is maya, and
will never lead anyone anywhere.


DTB	Bhakti, Gnyan and Karma [devotion, wisdom and action] are
aspects of the 3 universal Gunas or Qualities that make up the
nature of all beings in the universe. No exceptions. so liking
or disliking is not a criterion.



<<<The purpose of this School ( Earth) is to afford to every
single one of the immortal pupils that use it, with ever variety
of experience. As ancient Patanjali put it: "For the sake of the
Soul the Universe exists.">>>




If we were truly immortal, why would we need a school? This whole
line of thought is naive and illogical. Patanjali' statement is
correct. The universe is like a huge playground, it exists for
our pleasure or our suffering, and we have made it ourselves. In
it we go around and around and have lots of neat experiences, and
then one day we wake up and its all gone away.


DTB	The " Leela" or dance, or play of the infinite in the finite
is one way of looking at Karma or action and reaction. It is
employed by Indian philosophy to describe the play of LAWS
everywhere. Shiva dances manifestation into being and then when
over he dances it into that disintegration that makes for a
future reintegration and a renaissance of purposeful living.

The "SCHOOL' is n to for the Immortals who guide and control its
'classes," but for those temporary "constructs" the mayavic
creatures that are continually brought into being by the
interplay between SPIRIT and MATTER the polar opposites of all
evolution. Independently the immortal MIND -- vies these events
and records experience a growth in every Monad, who, as a pilgrim
passé through this vast school. That is how i see it.


<<<Such education starts with the least experienced, and
culminates in those who are able to embody mentally the entire
universe as a working WHOLE.>>




This kind of elitist thinking sounds like something Hitler would
agree with. Are you one of those Great Ones who can tell a newbie
when he sees one? I see the above as an ego trip fantasy for
elists.




DTB	Call it what you may, I am as you well know not in the habit
of aggrandizing the vices of ay personality, or of justifying
them. I do recognize grades of experience. So do you. The
perfectibility of the mind and the development of the depth and
breadth of memory are common facts. I see not reason to deride
them. I am quite unaware of any kind of "elitist" thinking
(whatever that may be conceived to be) or, of
"Lower"-self-justification, in Theosophical, or even in my
thinking. Why should I rate myself "superior" to any one else,
simply because I never "accept" views without delving into the
"why" and "wherefore" of those ? Nor do I particularly conceive
of ay kind of superiority in any way vitiating our inquiries and
discussions. But I do see limitations.

And also, recall that I do not present my sole views. I also
present that which I have learned from Theosophy, and efface
myself before its greater wisdom. "Elitism" means nothing in the
search for TRUTH. It is a miasma, a true maya, of the
personality, a vice to accurate thinking.



<<< In effect they are said, mystically, to "return" to the ONE
SOURCE, plus all the experience gained.>>>



Your assumption here is that there is a divine spark or Monad
that needs experience, comes into manifestation to gain it, and
then returns with passing grades and a gold star. This is
childishly naive, and I don't think that this assumption has any
merit.



DTB	One does not "acquire" any "gold star." But one removes the
tarnish from the surface of our personalities ( one purifies
the "matter" which forms the present vehicles for our inner
selves) and the inner 'GOLD STAR" of the ATMA, of the HIGHER
SELF, may then shine out. And, as it is common to all, there is
no special vanity involved. If such be naiveté, then, I say:
good.

Incidentally I assume nothing, but present the views that
THEOSOPHY and her Teachers offer.


<<<Their future is then a self-determined choice as to whether
they selfishly enter a Nirvana for a very long time, or renounce
it, and remain to assist in the education of all the many beings
who are pursuing the course they have just graduated from. These
last are the Buddhas, the Dhyanis, the "Devas," the Bodhisattvas,
the Nirmanakayas, the Mahatmas and the Adepts,. no matter what
designations we may ascribe to them, or what apparent functions
they fill. A reading of The SECRET DOCTRINE in vol. I pp 570 to
575 gives an idea of the various hierarchies that accept and make
themselves responsible as the SERVANTS of Nature and of Man for
his progress.>>>

Of course I agree with all of this, but I also believe it to be
mayavic illusion and having no inherent reality at all. The above
is a description of manifestation and what goes on in it, but its
all maya at the end of the day.


DTB	You either know it is maya , or you assume it is so. But who
or why was maya instituted? I believe the Buddha addresses that
in his famous reply to Ananda after the wandering monk
Vacchagotta left.




<<< In TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE pp. 23-4,
is give the list and series of progression of the basic "Ah-Hi"
up to the Manasaputras ( we as mind-men of our present).>>



I won't disagree with any of this, but I do recognize manas games
and personifications when I see them.



DTB	Don't we all ? However I play no games in this and am quite
deliberately serious.



<<<As to the problems with the classification of "principles" --
if you study the Theosophical explanations, then you will
discover that they identify faculties (however named elsewhere
and in other systems) that are basic to our psychological
make-up. >>>



Dallas, as you know, I have studied this for over 35 years now,
and I am telling you that virtually no two writers say the same
thing. It is a confused hodgepodge of Sanskrit and mental baggage
that is totally unnecesary in todays world. The fact that it is
ancient is no reason for us to try to shoehorn it into our brains
today.


DTB	Dear Jerry what can I say? My study SERIOUSLY began when I
was 18. I am now 79. So I would say it is not age, but the
quality of our research and work, its impersonality and
universality that counts. And who are we, if confronted by the
WISE ONES ? We study Their words and Their philosophy and review
their records of History as the SAW IT OCCUR. What qualities
have we developed to challenge? Are we true believers (and
blind ?) , or like pupils in a mathematics class, use the basic
devices of mathematics to check the accuracy of the advanced
problems and equations we are offered ?



<<<< This is of course inclusive of the concept of Immortals
educating
themselves in the context of the Universe, as we now live in it.
[ S D I 157, II 596 gives the tables and explains the
details].>>>

I will have to close on this one.


Immortals having to be educated is so illogical and naive a
concept as to defy my imagination. If one is aleady immortal,
then education is a frivolous waste of time, IMHO. If you look at
history, you will see that education came about because people
with knowledge kept dying and taking their knowledge with them.
So writing and education came about - because we are mortal not
because we are immortal.



DTB	To me there is a wide difference between the IMMORTAL
HIGHER SELF -- the DIVINE MONAD who resides in us [ATMA-BUDDHI]
and our developing Lower Selves [KAMA-MANAS and KAMA] which
is/are only REFLECTIONS of that Higher.

Yes it is paradoxical.

There are TWO selves, 2 Egos in Man. The HIGHER and the Lower.

As I see it the processes of evolution and manifestation are the
teaching and testing grounds of that process that causes a
developing Monad -- a newbee -- one who has just emerged from the
MONADIC ESSENCE ( S D I 619, 632-4 ) to live and work in and
through the limitations of a material environment. How can a
Monad, when still inexperienced, learn unless it passes through
every phase of experience?

Our present kind of earth-life and the kind of Manasic
progression which we are now to develop interiorly, are aspects
of this process.

As I understand it: The Personal and ignorant has to develop
through thought and self-effort into the independent MIND that
can handle eventually all aspects of the Universe and its many
laws and situations. So the chela develops into the Initiate and
then, into the Adept. And eventually may become a "Buddha." And
do this, requires the acquisition of the power to do this quite
impersonally with no vestige of "elitism" left to show.

The total elimination of the limitations of selfishness is the
quest of the dedicated and devoted pupil of the Wise Ones. And,
each has to do it on their own. No "plums" of esotericism or of
"occultism" are ever acquired except by self-effort and
abnegation, total abnegation, of anything selfish, vain or
prideful. Nature will never share her ultimate secrets unless
the one so fitted has his lower self in absolute and complete
control. H P B is an example of this for all of us.

I hope that I may have cleared my views now. It is THEOSOPHY
that matters, and certainly not "myself."


BEST WISHES, As ALWAYS,

Dal.




Have a nice day,

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-14759P@list.vnet.net