Theos-Talk Archives (July 2002 Message tt00103)

July 9th 2002

Dear Friends:

What ever name you ascribe to a human unit of consciousness, (whether
it be "self" or something else) then the one I find that Theosophy has
used, denotes the difference between

1.	the Personal Self ( Lower-- or Kama-Manas ), and

2.	the Impersonal Wise SELF ( Higher-- or Buddhi Manas ).

It is also clear that these two aspects of the Mind are the tools of a
higher awareness which is superior to them both. The use of the word
self might be replaced by "mind," "awareness," "consciousness,"
"memory," etc... all functions reposing on a unitary being, and always
in the company of other similar units.

To me, if you say a thing does not exist, then why is it at all
mentioned?

How can the "non-existent" speak or formulate a concept of either
itself or the "existent ?" And if there is a "Being," then what
qualities and capacities may be ascribed to it ? Further, if you and
or I am a "being" -- and I am pretty sure that I exist, then where
does a Buddha come from ? What is the difference between myself and a
Buddha? (I know there are many labels and manes given and also there
are many description of qualities associated with those Names, but how
are the distinctions created? What do they exist for? Or, is this
"maya" the universal illusion merely a "Lela" a dance which some super
being, say "Siva" (for the Hindus), or Mahasur (for the Tantrikas),
creates for its personal pleasure to watch the futile struggle of
countless mortals?

Let us say that "Maya" or "illusion" is a fact. Then by contrast
there has to be something that is not ILLUSION. Or else the
distinction is unclear. Let us say that there is ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.
It is modified by the filters we call pain and joy.

But this does not account for the existence of joy or of suffering.
If the cause for those two opposites is undefined, there seems to be
no good reason to continue.

If you say "suffering is" then by contrast there is a preferable
condition which we could call "bliss," "pleasure," or "liberation
from suffering." As I understand it the Great Buddha enunciated
these, and for those who desired to pass from the pains of suffering
( not illusions) to the reality (not illusions) of joy and bliss, he
delineated a Path and to this PAT he gave the designation THE NOBLE
EIGHTFOLD PATH.

In this I see no difference from Theosophy and its descriptions and
conclusions. The language is no doubt different, but I do not see
that the ideas are estranged. If you and I could speak PALI and
debate with the Buddha on this problem, what would be the outcome?

I employ the designation "selfish" to indicate the personal
isolationist, attitude.

I would also use the designation "unselfish," universal,"
"impersonal," "ideal," etc... to indicate something any one can
adopt.

To me "liberation" (also "salvation") expresses isolation from the
world of suffering, and the world where we can perhaps help others. I
do not note in the NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH that the Buddha recommended
asceticism and neglect of one's neighbors or community.

I look around us and see interaction everywhere, also cooperation,
also, protection of the weak by the strong, and these are some of the
"virtues" which Buddhist and other philosophies delineate. If we are
a community -- and if we include in this the lowest of the low and the
most High, then abandoning this situation is not reasonable. I do not
find that the Buddha extolled that.

He, in brief said" Cease from evil. Do good."

He did not ascribe any specific "goal" -- or did he ? If so in what
terms ?

In regard to our situation, the Theosophical philosophy directs
attention to a basic fact: the whole of nature is alive and
conscious. Every being from "life-atom" to "Buddha" consists of one
immortal and eternally conscious MONAD.

The second basic fact is everything without exception is rules by LAW.
It is the bond and life-line of the Universe. Hence we ever support
or hinder one another, depending on whether we choose to live for
"good," or for "evil." Most of us are mixtures of these two motives,
and accordingly Nature responds under her law of exactitude and
fairness with a commensurate response -- always educative -- as it
draws forcibly our attention to the EFFECTS which we CAUSED.

The Universe is held to be full of these points of life -- the MONADS.
(No exceptions. No void.) As such the conclusion is that we are all
"brothers," regardless of the level to which our particular
consciousness may have ascended .

You seem to delight in making distinctions between Mahayana, Hinayana,
Theravada, and other philosophical or "practical" branches ascribed to
Buddhism. But the Buddhist philosophy of 2,600 years ago does not in
any way differ from the panorama of Theosophy to my eyes and
understanding.

I rather see a great unity between the two.

Certainly we are all bound by our Karma -- the karma we instituted by
personal choice. Certainly also we can learn to see when we make
errors, in terms of universal Law. Certainly we can try to undo those
errors.

In which case what happens? Harmony is restored. We learn to choose
better next time, but what happens to the "WE" who lives, and makes
continual choices moment to moment ? How can we improve unless we
discover what Nature's LAWS of Harmony are? How can we improve unless
we learn to practice the paramitas "of Perfection ?" (see VOICE OF
THE SILENCE, pp. 53-4,(in my book) Fragment III, about 6 pages from
its commencement.)

Best wishes,

as always,

Dallas.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: g schuel
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re to Dallas

<<<<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.">>>

The above shows the total lack of understanding of Liberation
by Theosophists
today. And I have to blame the TSs who have done a lousy job of
emphasizing it
and explaining it. Dallas, my friend and fellow debater, how can the
personality be saved or liberated when it doesn't even exist? Buddha
taught
four Nobel Truths: (1) all manifested existence is a form of
suffering, (2)
The cause of such suffering is Karma, (3) Freedom or Liberation from
suffering
exists, and (3) the means to that liberation or freedom is a Path.
Theosophy
emphasizes all of these except the third, liberation. The Theosophical
Path
that most Theosophists seem to be on appears to me to be one of
securing a
better future life, which is, in fact, a form of spiritual
selfishness.
Dallas, can't you see that while you denigrate "selfishness" you also
extol
getting merit or good karma in order to secure a better future life.
Your
posts are hypocritical, or at least they appear so to me.

*************************

<<<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.>>>

The entire notion of "selfishness" assume that a self exists,
Dallas. When a
person becomes enlightened, they maintain a direct experiential
realization
that no such self exists anywhere. So who is it that is "selfish?" You
are
projecting your own human mayavic worldview onto Buddha's teaching of
Liberation, and it is downright illogical and silly.

********************

<<<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 ?>>>

The "purified KAMA-MANAS" is maya. For that matter, the
defiled kama-manas is
also maya. The "perception" of a nirvanee is one of total freedom from
suffering, an overwhelming feeling of the oneness of all things as
anyone who
has had a mystical experience can attest. Nirvana is nothing less and
nothing
more than a very long mystical experience.

***********************

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

I am saddened to have to keep on repeating myself over and
over and still you
persist with this nonsense. NIRVANA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIBERATION
according to the Mahayana tachings, and this idea is pure Hinayana.
Why do you
persist in keeping this up? Liberation, as taught in Mayahana, is
freedom from
both samsara and nirvana, freedom from both natter and spirit. And how
could
it be anyting else when matter and spirit are two aspects of the same
thing?
Dallas, your posts remind me a lot of Hinayana teachings where the
goal is
nirvana, because your goal is the Spiritual Self or "eternal pilgrim."
The
Spiritual Self or atma-buddhi is itself a nirvanee. So when you send
out posts
that say nirvanees are selfish and we should instead try to unite with
atma-buddhi you are very hypocritical because these are two names for
the same
thing.

*********************

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

kinds.>>>

Liberation is freedom from the bonds of karma. Blavatsky tells
us that karma
is a chain that comes in two flavors, gold and iron. Both have to be
removed.
Your "eye for an eye" doctrine will not allow for karmic liberation,
and that
is why I call it pernicious.

********************

<<<"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.>>>

Salvation is the Chrisitian form of Buddhism's liberation. It
assumes that a
God exists and that a soul exists and that the former can save the
latter. The
Christian teaching is that we are all inherently evil and sinful, but
that
salvation is possible. The Buddhist teaching is that we are all bound
by our
own karma but that liberation is possible.



Enough for now