Theos-Talk Archives (July 2002 Message tt00099)

July 8 2002

Re: Moksha or Nirvana -- also -- Liberation and Salvation

Dear Friends:

As far as I know the "liberation" and the "salvation" are hope
extended to the personality. Hence they are selfish. Whatever the
degree of progress the individual Monad may have achieved, a desire
however slight for isolated bliss, retirement, or some kind of
estrangement from the "world we all live in" (meaning the UNIVERSE),
makes for the philosophical "Moksha," or "Nirvana."

Those are well defined states of selfishness however "spiritual." I
find that the last few pages of the VOICE OF THE SILENCE deals with
those and the final "choice" all successful candidates for INITIATION
have to make.

It is the purified KAMA-MANAS which chooses such isolation or bliss.
But, for how long? And what kind of activity or perception does such
a state provide ?

I see that The SECRET DOCTRINE speaks of "returning Nirvanees ( S D
II 79-80, 94, and elsewhere)

i ask myself what is the philosophical basis for such statements.
Which of the 7 "principles" in man are affected by such a condition,
if chosen?

Liberation as I understand it is from the sorrows and sufferings of
the earth wrapped in the personal Karmic retributions of various
kinds.

"Salvation" is as I understand it, is the spiritualizing of the desire
nature (Kama) so that it is made useful for the INNER SPIRITUAL SELF
to use and work through.

But consider: the ATMA is a Ray of the ONE SPIRIT. Perfect,
"liberated" from all 'evil,' and "saved." It always stands "apart"
and is not to be defined, it simply IS. {To my understanding it is
the connecting bond between the personal self and the UNIVERSAL
SELF.] -- see S D II 176 (top), and Gloss 170-1: " Desire first
arose in IT which was the primal germ of Mind, and which Sags
searching with their intellect, have discovered (in their heart) to be
the bond which connects Entity with Non-Entity." [ or the "embodied
personal consciousness" with the "UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS -- THE ONE
SPIRIT.]

BUDDHI is the wisdom acquired by personal experience in and through
all grades and kinds of substance or matter. It is the wisdom of the
memory of having been personally through innumerable experiences and
making an accurate and immediately available record of the results.
It is also to that extent "saved." It is also "liberated," since it
is the eternal EXPERIENCER.

MANAS -- the Mind is the tool, of the Spiritual (Atma-Buddhi Monad)
as well as the Personal and Individual Chooser which works in the
fields of the manifested evolutionary being. It is 1. the tool of
ATMA-BUDDHI, and thus becomes in use the BUDDHI-MANAS or the "Higher
Mind." It is 2. the Power to Think and to be self-reflective, the
highest power of the "personal" (transitory) Lower Self --0 or, as I
understand it, the present intelligence that we call our Personality
or our selves in the "here and now."

Manas being two-fold makes for the mystery of the Dual Egos in every
human. ( see S D II 167, 230, 254-5, 58,
S D I 225, 247, 609 )

"Genetic inheritance" would be the physiological aspect of the inner
psychic and spiritual motivations. ( see S D I 225fn, 223, II 421,
671-2, ) There is no doubt that there is a physiological
transmission through the atoms that are the foundation of the
Personality. But one has to then ask what causes those "atoms" to
thus serve as transmitters ?

As to our "Goal." I see it expressed in many ways. "Liberation" and
"salvation" seem to be expressions of the apotheosis of the Desire
Nature in us. But the "Spiritual nature" has to be understood, if we
are to graduate into that condition and state.

As I understand it it is far ore that a satiation or a harmonizing of
the desires we have. It is a perception of the unified regularity of
action and reaction throughout the Universe, and an appreciation of
the part we play in that. One might call it impersonalizing ones
self.

Universalizing might be another way of saying it.

Also as Buddha suggested the "middle way" of harmlessness and care of
all creatures in and around us might be another way of expressing it.
In sum one could say that it is DHARMA -- or the duty we oe as a
member of the universe and our earth to the rest of "creation" and of
the ever-unknowable "NON-CREATION -- the ABSOLUTE.

There are no synonyms or examples that can be used for comparison,
since our Lower Mind, in the best and highest reaches of that
impersonality which it can achieve in an ideal meditative state" (
Turiya or Samadhi) finds itself speechless.

So to me the "Goal" exceeds any personal qualities or attributes that
we might presently use for definition. It is perhaps best expressed
as an intuition that there is a reachable excellence and this
EXCELLENCE transcends any limited Perfection that might be provided by
any one Manvantara. It goes on and on -- endlessly. So, from one
pint of view, it is useless to speculate on it. From another point,
it is the eternal FLAME which one always is approaching, but never
reaching. That SELF is then allegorized or emblematized as an all
enveloping, a devouring FLAME -- the ultimate purifier.

Is it not strange that FIRE and FLAME have never been defined except
in terms of the "feelings" that are the products of that "something."
Heat, Light, refinement, all transmuting Force, etc...

A I see it the process of reincarnation is like making bread. one
assembles the ingredients, kneads them, bakes them and the eats.
Crudely put: The by-product of eating is more fertilizer in which
grain grows, and the whole cycle repeats. But if one endows the
ingredients as individual entities, with immortality and endurance,
(as life atoms, or Skandhas) then the process also adds to them the
impress of the environments they go through as individuals, and as
groups. We than have the concept of progressive advance of individual
Monads as immortal "atoms."

And to this we might add an insoluble paradox: When does the
individual Atom become a self-conscious UNIVERSE ? Are size and time
of importance? or is the awareness of them of consequence? and if so,
the who or what is it that notes the experience and the difference, or
proceeds to make intelligent use of the phenomena ?

Now whether this is exotericism or esotericism is not important. as
those are self-made labels. The main point is are the fair,
reasonable and true expressions of a situation under consideration?
As I said many times anything expressed in words or illustrated for
all to see and read is automatically EXOTERIC. The esoteric is ever
the inner mystery. It is ever creative, and ever-existent. In all
things IT ever resides. It is the SUPREME SELF -- inexpressible and
immutable.

Well hope this proves of use.

Best wishes as always,

Dal.

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






-----Original Message-----
From: g schul
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re to Dallas -- Liberation, Salvation ?

<<<Any choice we make, Theosophy says, makes a Karmic link. It is
inevitable
because of the energy and the power we expend and impress

on all that surrounds us, starting with our own physical bodies.>>>



Dallas, the above is not quite correct, although maybe it depends on
how we
want to define "karma?" The idea that every choice or thought or
action makes
new karma is the old Mosaic "eye for an eye" doctrine that eliminates
any
possibility of liberation (the "salavation" that Jesus taught) from
the cycles
of reincarnation. Only certain choices and actions that we take/make
will
produce karma. There are "karmaless actions" and "karmaless choices"
that we
can make. These are done by not impressing our body or surroundings.
This is
an important part of Buddhism and Theosophy tends to ignore it. But
without
it, Theosophy is saying that we are all "stuck" in incarnation until
the end
of this manvantara, which is simply not true.





<<<In fact we could with justice say that our present existence
represents the
cumulation of all decisions we have made in this life

(up to now) and also of "unfinished business" from our past lives.
(But the
"past lives" aspect may be disputed by those who see no

continuity in living, and are satisfied with a "One Life" condition
that leads
to no particular future. I would call. that futility.)>>>



Agreed, and this "unfinished business" is expressed in each
incarnation as our
genetic inheritance. Belief in reincarnation is a doubtle-edged sword,
my
friend. With it, one tends to put things off till future lives.
Without it,
one tends to accomplish much in a single lifetime. The trick is to
find a
middle position. The belief that we cannot become enlightened in this
life,
and can only do so in a future life, is self-defeating, and we use
this idea
as an excuse for not exerting effort in this life. Fear drives us to
put
things off till a future life when we will be "ready." Crossing the
Abyss, for
example, is death to the ego, and so is naturally freightening and we
instinctively seeks excuses to put it off. But we cannot put off our
own
death, can we? And death is the end of the ego too. So ego-death is
100%
certain one way or the other and when this is realized and accepted
the Path
is no longer seen as such a scary thing.





<<<<As an example of this reasoning, the ancient community of Jains in
India,
hold that our existence is due to the many aspects and forms of

Karma which have attached themselves to us ( taking us to be Spiritual
and
Mind beings in a progressive evolution). Of course if this is

rejected as a concept this answer means nothing. Those aspects of
substance
and Karma conjoined are what are called the "Skandhas," or

"Samskaras." [ Units of life impressed with the force of a person's
thoughts
and desires. ] To the Jains the object of the wise man in

the present life, is to receive these effects and try to balance them
with
understanding and equanimity. The reason for this is that the

future of the individual, will be ever more harmonious, and finally
the
portals of Moksha, or Nirvana open before that Spirit-Soul ( which

they hold we are in our core-nature.) It seems that their concept of
a future
beyond that is not definable in our terms, but of necessity,

the door of reincarnation closes for that Spirit/Soul and it vanishes
from our
ken.>>>



Dallas, again I have to ask what our goal is. Do we want to "be ever
more
harmonious" and happy? Is that our goal? Is our goal to switch from
being a
material being to a spiritual being? Then this is a good Path to that
goal.
But my goal is freedom from the bonds of karma, freedom from the
chains of
both materiality and spirituality, and such a Path won't do for me.
The five
skandhas are: the 18 constituents, the 4 elements, causes, conditions,
and a
viewing consciousness. Where in all of these parts is the "I?" It is
none of
them. Yet how can the I be different from these components? There is
no I that
is separate from them. So, logically the I cannot be found in the
skandhas nor
can it be found separate from them, and at least one possible
conclusion that
can be reached from this is that such an I does not exist.





<<<Theosophy, however is found saying that even the Nirvanees have to
"return"
to the human life-stage at some remote future time, when the

rest of humanity has caught up with those fore-runners. ( see SECRET
DOCTRINE
Vol II 79 bottom, also II 94, 233, 275, )>>>



Nirvnees are those who chose to shift from an ego-self to a Spiritual
Self.
Nirvanees are those who identify themselves with the atma-buddhi
monad. They
are those who identify with the "eternal pilgrim." Doing so places a
person in
nirvana. And Blavatsky is quite right to say that they have to return.
Why?
Because a spiritual self is no more "real" than an ego-self.





<<<<These aspects of Karma, which we have formed in the past, are the
eddies
and snags we instituted when in that past of ours we either

assisted and harmonized with NATURE, or broke its laws and rules, --
either
knowingly, or ignorantly. We reap their effects as snags or

benefits as we progress in our lives. They form the link of
cause/effect/cause that ever concatenates, one leading to the next -
as in a
chain.>>>



Withou full conscious awareness of this, it is just a mental concept,
and one
that I don't find satisfying at all. The whole line of reasoning here
assumes
that there is a continuing "self" that undergoes karmic evolution.
This
assumption is what maya is all about. in short, as long as a person
believes
the above, that person will keep on reincarnating.





<<<<There is a general tendency to believe the rest of Nature is
insensitive
and merely a support to our living, either individually or

collectively. This cannot be so, since the cooperative aspect of
nature
prevails and supports in animation good, bad and indifferent

individuals, considering their type of motivation.>>>



The "rest of nature" is our own mind projected outwardly and mistaken
for an
independent reality. When a person stands in a field and a storm comes
up and
lightening strikes them and kills them, is this a demonstration of
"the
cooperative aspects of nature?" I wonder if the starving people in
third-world
countries will agree with you about "the cooperative aspects of
nature." And
saying that this is simply their "karma" is no helpful answer at all.





<<<Te concept of motivation is an important one, because the whole
set-up of
our world and universe, and of our life from moment to moment,

reflects this cooperative and interactive aspect of existence, as a
few
moments of reflection reveals. ( At least it does so for me, as I

cannot visualize isolating myself as external and separate from this
environment -- the air, water, food and shelter which support my

physical existence. Of course others may think differently, but I am
not sure
that there criteria, taken as a whole, makes complete and

viable sense. [ The idea of a "Personal God," and the idea that one
can
"escape punishment" for evil done, are two of these. ]>>>



You seem to be motivated to have better future lives for yourself.
This will
undoubtedly work, and you can do so. But the idea of working off past
bad
karma by doing good deeds is a lot like asking an ant to move the
eastern
shore to the western shore one grain of sand at a time. I find no
motivation
in this, but this is my own personal opinion.





<<<Our self-image as IDEA means (at least to me) everything to our
own growth
and progress. This IDEA is important to realize, to grasp. It

provides us with a mental base for reference as t past, and something
from
which we can proceed in a future we have a hand in designing.>>>



Grasping onto a self-image is exactly what maya is all about, and as
long as
you do so, it does not matter a hoot what that image is.





<<<<If we have a "self-idea" -- as to who or what we are, then we have
adopted
that particular pattern of a combined mix of "likes and dislikes"
(emotions
and desires) coupled with the MIND capacity to imagine, think,
remember, and
forget.>>>



So long as we maintain a self-image of any kind at all, just so long
are we
under the bonds of karma and maya. The mind is the slayer of the real.
Someone
who knows once said that but we tend to ignore or forget.





<<<<But these are of course subservient to the REAL MAN -- the
PERCEIVER, the
THINKER, and the OBSERVER who is unchangeable and immutable in us.

It is the real eternal human being.>>>



If you look hard for such a "real man" you will not find such a thing
anywhere. You will only find components that depend on causes and
conditions.
There simply is no such a thing as an "observer who is unchangeable"
anywhere
at all, in us or out of us. All bservers/identities change over time.
All of
them. There is no "eternal human being" and saying so is just a mental
concept
that has no basis in fact. Blavatsky very clearly tells us that the
human
being, that the human condition, is a temporary phase that we pass
through. I
would go farther and say that everything is a temporary phase that we
go
through.





<<<<This is something we prove to ourselves every moment we make a
wish, or
paint an imaginary picture of what we would like our future to be, or
think
about some past experience.>>>



Dallas, you cannot "prove" a falsehood. There is no "proof" for any
eternal
observer or thinker, quite the contrary. There is experiential
evidence that
such a thing does not exist but no "proof" one way or the other.





<<<<We are always detached from our records, our experiences, or hopes
and
fears. They form the fabric of our consciousness at a lower level

than the FACT of our BEING.>>>



hmmmm. It seems to me that the "fact of our being" is simply our
mayavic
experiences as a human observer in a material world. Such "facts"
change over
time.





<<<We, THE BEING are the progressing, questioning, adventuring,
seeking SELF.

That's as I see it from my study in Theosophy.

Best wishes,

Dallas>>>



The above is pure exotericsm. Theosophy needs to address more esoteric
issues
and emphasize more esoteric themes. The exoteric belief in a permanent
and
independent self lies at the root of maya and karma, and it is because
Theosophy has to date emphasized this over Blavatsky's more esoteric
teachings
that you one reach such conclusions. We all tend to reify the ego.
Theosophists are by and large at a point where they see the mayavic
nature of
the ego but still reify atma-buddhi. Either this will change and
atma-buddhi
will no longer be reified or Theosophy will die off as a silly cult
that
thought it was a religion. This is a prediction folks, a choice that I
can see
very clearly, but the jury is still out on which way it will go.
Changing to
word "God" to "Karma" or "Nature," the word "belief" to "fact," and
the word
"soul" to "atma-buddhi" or "monad" does not mean that Theosophy is not
a
religion. A rose is a rose is a rose. Worship can be formal or
informal, but
it is still worship.



Jerry S.