Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00039)

Dec 29 2002

Dear Friends:

As far as I can understand, I would say:

Manas serves as an interpreter. The ONE CONSCIOUSNESS pierces up and
down the several planes of BEING and serves to record the MEMORY of
experiences there. It dreams, it has visions, it thinks, it is moved
by desire or passion, and it is able to be impartial and universal in
its approach and study. The important thing is (to me): "WHO ARE WE
WHO DIRECT IT ?"

How do we set the patterns and criteria, and ask questions? also,
Why do we do that ?

Without that unity and continuity, whether we call it MANAS or
anything else, our own coherency and experiences on "other planes,"
could not be expressible or cognizable to the physical brain mechanism
we are forced to use when awake in the here and now. But, why are we
so constrained? Are there areas where there is greater freedom? How
do we approach them? What plan or map can we use to travel there?

H P B says explicitly when she is writing, when something is being
made exoteric. There are great funds of actions and works going on
all the time in nature -- and if we don't know about them they are
"esoteric" to us. Even the circulation of the blood and the nerve
action that controls our muscles, etc... are virtually unknown to us.
How does the "Will to act" originating in the "immaterial mind" tell
the physical brain what to do in its work of controlling the physical
body?

Labeling makes no difference to facts.

To observe the results of experiments is a scientist's task. Any one
can use their techniques. The student is invited by Theosophy to do
this on himself, and in himself. Study the way in which we set
ourselves tasks -- it will prove interesting.

Logic is a tool developed in and by the Mind. Its value depends on
sincerity and honesty. It makes no claims other than to lead any one
from premises to conclusions. If faulty premises are used, then
faulty conclusions are reached. A pure, clear base is always
essential.

Our "imagination" is another tool as it is able to set up in advance
the parameters of our search or actions. How do we use it? How doe
we build or tear down the mind constructions we frame?

Where, then do we start?

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: gschueler
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 1:09 PM
To:
Subject: - Logic

<<<Dallas wrote: <<We have to confine our study to observation and
common
sense, not speculate on anything which we are not directly cognizant
of.
There has to be honesty and sincerity, and
rigorous logic.>> >>>

What Dallas is really saying here is that without experiential
knowledge,
without direct spiritual experience, we have to rely on manas. While
this is
true, a more meaningful answer would be that we need to gain direct
spiritual
experience. Manas will get us intellectual conceptualizations, not
spiritual
experiences.


<<<But if we tend to over confine "our study to observation and common
sense"
in terms of "rigorous logic," ... then where could one be going with
that kind
of general approach if it's extended even to one's "Theosophic
studies"? >>>

One would be going to make intellectual hay (confetti?) out of
Blavatsky's
writings which are all exoteric in the first place.


<<< That is, while "rigorous logic" may have many mainstream/exoteric,
very
apparently, or real enough useful roles in our lives, (ie, "proving"
and
"disproving" this and that as per whatever initial assumptions one
might
adopt, or tend to adopt, from time to time), I suspect that part of
"the study
of
Theosophy" might include the cultivation of, say, "a broader
perspective,"
>>>>

Exactly. First of all, logic, rigorous or otherwise, is only as good
as one's
initial assumptions. Second, experiential knowledge is not necessarily
logical. Third, no amount of logic will ever "prove" anything at all.
Proof,
in context of society, is nothng more than mutual consent, and in
context with
oneself is nothing more than a temporary acceptance that one's
experiences can
be explained by one's worldview. There is not one single Theosophical
teaching
that can be "proved" to everyone's satisfaction.


<<<In other words, as I see it, karma can (and does?) place so many
apparent
inconsistencies in one's p/Path, often enough, so that an
over emphasis on "rigorous logic," as I see it, makes for a fools
path, in a
sense, in that, (as we all know?), "logic" in this dualistic world is
limited
to (as HPB might've pointed out?) the kind of reality making that, as
a dog
chasing its own tail might find out, has no "end" or intrinsic reality
aside
from it's dualistic, mayavic, karmic, temporary appearance.
Speculatively,
Mauri>>>

Well said, Mauri. It is only when one experiences nonduality and a
karmaless
condition that the real limits and false appearances of karma can be
known,
and one can stop chasing after something that already exists within
us.
Nonduality or Beness is ineffable and cannot ever be understood by
manas. So,
if we want to use logic, then logically we should meditate and
transcend manas
altogether so that we can experience spirituality directly and see for
ourselves what is really going on.

Jerry S.