Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00729)

Mauri:

Suppose I try to let Theosophy answer:

Using the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) Would it not say :



The WE is the spiritual INDIVIDUAL the eternal man --
ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS which incarnates into many bodies named
personalities.


Since the personalities (Lower mind or Kama-manas) are involved in the
selfishness of many desires, our views tend to be clouded by those
limitations. How do we eliminate those clouds?

We need to seek behind those for the TRUE SELF so to say.

What then are we? Who is the REAL MAN ? We can give it names, but
then the attributes are the things that count. What would you say to
defining those ?

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Ma
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:12 PM
To:
Subject: re Dallas's . . .

Dallas wrote: <<As to "God" If we personalize this
concept we dwarf it. In reality it has no "Form." If we
give one mentally to IT, we make it in our mind smaller
than the Universe or illimitable SPACE. If we perceive
that the DIVINE PRINCIPLE is universal, we admit that
it is everything and cannot be separate from or different
from anything in Nature (the Universe.) We as well as
everything else are included. God is within each of us, as
well as in all else.>>

As I tend to see it, Dallas, your choice of words (re such
as "we personalize," "we dwarf," "we give," "we
perceive," etc) seems to place much questionable
relevance on a "we" that's (as per Theosophy?) mayavic,
dualistic, karmic, exoteric, etc . . .

Anyway, on the subject of "God," I think I prefer
wording that, for a start, might go something along the
lines of:

"God" seems to have been interpreted in so many
different ways (obviously enough?) And there seem to be
so many different interpretations for the "Monad" and
"Higher Self" of Theosophy, too? And some of us may
prefer to assign God, Monad, Higher Self into some kind
of fundamentally different basic categories, say (all in
dualistic terms, regardless, in some cases?), but I suspect
that Mahayna Buddhists, by definition, distinguish
between dualistic notions and non-dualistic ones, and
esoteric and exoteric, (which kind of
distinguishing---apparently?---seems to be somewhat
easier said than done, in some cases . . .).

If theists prefer to use the word "God" instead of, say,
the "non-dual Monad" of Mahayna Buddhism, then those
who prefer the latter might wonder (?) how such theists
approach/interpret whatever they define as "God" (ie,
whether their approaches, attitudes, interpretations seem
to be in keeping with dualistic or non-dualistic b/Basics).

While I tend to wonder about where you're coming from,
Dallas, at the same time I tend to find myself agreeing, in
a sense, with the kind of wording ("exoterics," as it were)
that you offered us about "God." I suppose we all tend
to lean toward whatever seems most meaningful to us.

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS And because I have lately begun to see duality in a
mayavic sense, I've been counciling myself to keep my
distance as per "my speculative stance," not that I
haven't failed in my "distance keeping" many times,
but/"but" . . .