Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00695)

Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:12
[From Jerry Schueler who posted this message on Theos-L.]

Subject: [. . . the three god-realizations]

<<<Jerry, on Theos-Talk, I posted the following. I thought you might 
be interested, too. If you make any comments on this subject, can I 
post them to Theos-Talk since both Goswami and Theosophical 
subscribers on that forum may find your comments of some interest?
Daniel>>>

Daniel, I do not know who Goswani is, but he is apparently Indian and 
is coming at this from either a Hindu or Vedanta direction, I am not 
sure which. You can post my comments anywhere, but my comments are 
more Theosophical and Buddhist. I hope no one takes offense. I offer 
them in a spirit of love and of sharing information and ideas.

<<<THE VEDAS AND UPANISHADS ETC. DESCRIBE THREE KINDS OF GOD 
REALIZATION, THAT OF THE IMPERSONAL BRAHMAN IS THE FIRST AND LEAST 
INCLUSIVE, NOT THE MOST. IT IS FOUND IN MANY RELIGIONS AND ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE UNITIVE EXPERIANCE OF 'NATURE MYSTICISM'.>>>

I agree with the three kinds of spiritual realization. But the use of 
the word God here is an assumption that I do not agree with. I 
see "god realization" as a reification of an impersonal principle 
(Goswami even calls Brahman "impersonal" here and most people, myself 
included, interpret the word "God" as being a personal deity) in that 
I personally do not see any God in my own meditations and Buddhism 
assures me that there are none. Brahman is said to be the creator of 
our universe, and is usually considered to be a god. But Brahman is a 
name for all those collective creative and karmic forces that 
generated the lower portion of our Earth planetary chain. In short, 
Brahman is a collective that created globes A though G on the lower 
four planes. Union with Brahman is a union with our samsaric 
universe, a lower mystical experience in which the whole world 
(physical, astral, mental, and causal) is seen as one huge 
networked/interconnected living organism.


<<< EXPERIENCE OF THE BRAHMAN OR PARABRAHMN, AS IT IS SOMETIMES 
CALLED IN THEOSOPHY, IS CONSIDERED IN VAISHNAVA ADVAITA VEDANTA AS 
THE FIRST RUNG ON THE LADDER OF GOD-AND-SELF REALIZATION.>>>

Blavatsky makes a clear and unequivical distinction between Brahman, 
the personification of creativity within manifestation, and 
Parabrahman, a non-dualistic Ground totally outside of dualistic 
manifestation. The "first rung" is with Brahman, not with Parabrahman.


<<< THEN THE SECOND RUNG IS THE REALIZATION OF PARAMATMAN (THE 
IMMANENT, PERSONAL HOLY SPIRIT AND IT'S BELOVED JIVATMA), WHICH 
INCLUDES BRAHMAN VISION,
>>>>

I agree that the second rung is paramatman. Blavatsky puts atma or 
atman on the 2nd or 3rd planes depending on her context, so that 
paramatman is on the first plane. The first rung has to do with a 
union of the four lower planes. The second rung has to do with the 
union of the upper three planes. But Paramatman is not a "personal 
holy spirit" by any stretch of the imagination.

It is rather a collective spiritual subjectivity in which all monads 
in manifestation share alike and partake in. I have dubbed the 
existent on the first plane the I-Not-I Monad, mainly because 
Blavatsky never mentions it but goes directly to the atma-buddhi 
monad, which is lower. Paramatman is the I in the I-Not-I Monad. It 
is the link between the nondual Monad and atma which is dualistic. 
The first and second rungs, call them god-realizations or mystical
experiences or samadhis or whatever, are still in duality, which is 
why a third is necessary.


<<<AND FINALLY THE SUMMIT AND MOST INCLUSIVE, WHICH IS BHAGAVAN 
REALIZATION, IN WHICH THE BRAHMAN, PARAMATMAN AND BHAGAVAN, THE 
ORIGINAL SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD ARE ALL EXPERIANCED / 
REALIZED OR DIRECTLY 'SEEN'. . . . >>>

I have never heard the term "bhagavan realization" before, but 
whatever we want to call it, it is an experience of non-duality, a 
union of the nondual Monad with Beness. There is a difference between 
the nondual Monad and the I-Not-I Monad in that the former is non-
dualistic while the latter is in duality. The former has no parts, 
while the latter has three (subjectivity, objectivity, and their 
interconnection which Blavatsky calls Fohat).


<<<THE FINAL REFERENCE TO THE ONE, HE, THE OBSERVER IN THE HIGHEST 
HEAVEN POSSIBLY KNOWING "NOT", IS A DIRECT REFERENCE TO THE DOCTRINE 
OF YOGA MAYA, IN WHICH GOD 'COVERS' (HIDES OR DENIES) A PORTION OF 
HIS OWN CONCIOUSNESS 'OVER' WITH YOGA MAYA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREMA, 
DIVINE LOVE. THE REALM OF BHAKTI LILA EXISTS WITHIN THE MAYA OR 'NOT-
ME' PLEASURE POTENTIA OF GODHEAD, IN THE ORIGINAL GIVER'S (ADI 
PURUSHA'S) FEMININE RECIEVING SHAKTI OR SHEKINAH. ONE OF THE ADI 
SHAKTI'S POTENCIES IS MAYA, ILLUSION, BUT THERE ARE TWO FORMS OF MAYA.
THE ATHEISTS ONLY KNOW ABOUT MAHA-MAYA OR THE KIND OF ILLUSION DEALT 
WITH BY THE ADVAITIS AND BUDDHISTS. HOWEVER THAT MAYA IS ONLY CO-
EXTENSIVE WITH THE SAHA WORLD OF BIRTH, DEATH, DISEASE, AND OLD AGE, 
WHILE THE ORIGINAL TRANSCENDENTAL MAYA, YOGA MAYA, IS ALSO ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE IMMATERIAL HEAVEN-OF-HEAVENS, VAIKUNTHAS (PURE LAND) OR 
PARADISE. WHEN AND WHERE YOGA MAYA IN UNION WITH ADI PURUSHA IS 
REALIZED WITHIN A MATERIAL WORLD, THE 'KINGDOM OF HEAVEN' IS MADE 
MANIFEST WITHIN IT ! THERE 'GOD-WHO-IS-LOVE' REIGNS SUPREME, AND ALL 
THE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED!>>>

I am not sure what to make of this paragraph. The idea that God 
deliberately hides himself in maya out of his great love for us is 
yet one more creation myth/story that attempts to explain why and how 
we are all here. And it too makes assumptions, and it too is logical 
only within those assumptions. However, the reference here 
to "Buddhists" is to Hinayana Buddhism and not to Mayahayana Buddhism 
which knows very well about the two forms of maya.

Mahayana Buddhism teaches that all 7 planes are maya, that spirit and 
matter are two aspects of the same substance and that substance 
itself is mayavic. I doubt very much that "all questions are 
answered" or can ever be. What happens in mystical experiences, or 
god-realizations for those who find it necessary to posit a deity, is 
that the questions themselves are seen in these experiences to be 
based on false assumptions and so they simply go away rather than be 
logically answered. There are no logical answers to the why and how of
creation outside of unprovable assumptions. 

Jerry S.