Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00585)

Dec 18 2002

Dear Jerry:

1 If the "aggregate" of skandhas is a fact then some central force or
energy assembles them and sets their parameters of association.

2	You say KARMA. I say Karma of who or what? An entity has KARMA, an
assemblage of entities have a joint Karma. But who or what does the
assembling ? What is its purpose ?

3	Assuming that the collectivity is a temporary thing -- a maya in
terms of the infinity in time, yet, I fail to see how ignorance is
involved.

4.	What is it that is ignorant? what is it that is wise? What is it
that transcends ILLUSION /MAYA and perceives REALITY ?

5.	agree that it is an ARC OF DESCENT. But why was such a descent
undertaken ?
Why was "restriction and bondage" taken on? Was the WISE ONE that
made the DESCENT become ignorant ? It does not seem reasonable. Some
factor is missing.

6.	I also agree there is an Arc of Ascent. assuming the entity in the
Arc of Descent is the same as in the Arc of Ascent, why the gyration?
If it is wise before it descends then ha t is acquired in Ascent?

7.	You say "freedom or enlightenment" I say the WISE remains WISE,
but in descent and ascent it touches and affects the aggregated
skandhas. Are they benefited? Is their quantum of ignorance
enlightened? How did they earn the Karma of encountering a WISE ONE
in this way ?

8.	In no way do I attempt to "reify IT. IT IS unconditionally either
a pert of or in fact the WHOLE -- SPIRIT UNCONDITIONED, and ETERNAL.--
or do I misunderstand ?

9.	How can an IT which you say is "not a something or a being" be
conceived of? What then is IT ? And if it is unconditioned, how can
it be bound to the limited, mayavic and conditioned? How is it
possible for us to consider or talk of IT ? Or consider its
activities ?

10.	As I understand it CAUSES and KARMA, are interrelated, but not
spontaneous. There is a Nidana - a concatenation. Decision is a
cause, Karma of the motive and nature of the decision follows. Who or
what learns from that ? I assume this is a learning experience ?

11.	"Conditioned reality" cannot be dualistic. Dualism is totally
undefinable -- it is unlimited divergence. There has to be another
associated factor: It has to be tripartite and unified. If not there
is no way of holding any possibility of distinguishing between the
members of any DUALITY . It is the third party, that shares in the
other two, which, is able to see mutual and contrasting positions and
reconcile them. Is it not so ? [ MANAS is able to stand mid-way
between ATMA and BUDDHI, BUDDHI is "Primordial Matter" or, after all,
it is also "Root-Matter" or Mulaprakriti - or a divine SUBSTANCE
"Suddha Sattva" see THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY p. 311 ]

12.	Nondualism may be what Theosophical Metaphysics calls the
ABSOLUTENESS. Yet since manifestation is, duality, triune-ness and
multiplicity are facts, there has to be well reasoned logical process.
I am in search of that. { An old text says: The One consciousness
pierces up and down the 7 planes of being, and serves to uphold the
memory of experiences therein." ]

13,	I agree with the 3 definitions of "reality." I note that your
own experience defines your perception of reality. So does mine for
me, and others most probably do the same since we are able to exchange
thoughts on these things.

THINKING implies CONSCIOUSNESS, and that implies the MIND -- and thus
it seems to me the "multiplicity" of experiences have to do with the
MIND. You may not be satisfied with the definition of your existence
(and claim it does not exist because it is mayavic). But, I am with
mine. I know that I AM, and I see no reason to doubt that. It the
"personality" endowed with the Lower manas I am mayavic. But there is
that within me that this not. of this I am very sure. Was the Buddha
mayavic? Was Tsong Kha Pa mayavic?

MANAS - MIND thinks and calls itself Ego. (t is dual. One aspect is
named BUDDHI-MANAS, which is, to my understanding, a WISE-MIND. -- I
believe the BUDDHA was so classified. And also, He acknowledged other
BUDDHAS.

The other aspect of Manas is called Kama-Manas or Lower Manas and is
limited by its contact with selfishness and desire -- both of these
being mayavic.

14.	I see no objection to our saying that the skandhas as a
collectivity of Monads is a possibility. H P B used the word
MONAD -- in EVOLUTION (she says several times) to signify BUDDHI
alone -- as a or the MONAD. ATMA-BUDDHI is called the "monad" because
BUDDHI is inseparable from ATMA. In evolution the MIND (MANAS) is
also inseparable so one gets a kind of hybrid -- a triune MONAD.
None of these components can be separated expect by thought on their
functions. Yet they always work together at all times.

15.	I cannot agree that the SELF does not exist. I see its
manifestations everywhere. I sense it in myself as well as I do in
others all around me.

16.	I also fail to see why the great Tsong Kha Pa offers "liberation"
on any other way than a dependence on "name and form." The Spirit of
Man is at all time always "liberated." But its function in evolution
is to encourage other Monads that have reached the MIND-consciousness
level, to rise and grasp that view-point..

Of course the "chariot" is burned,. but the creative image of the
chariot persists in the Akasa, and when Karma require it, it is
brought together again. That is to me symbolic of reincarnation.

Karma draws the aggregates (skandhas) together for that purpose when
the cycle is right.

It is quite obvious to me that the present personality I call "Dallas"
is temporary, and it is not the REAL ME. I am something else.
"Dallas" is only my tool. Presently this body will die, but the
CONSCIOUSNESS that uses it, and its memories pass on. They also live
permanently in the Akasa.

That I would consider as the immortality of the BUDDHI-MANAS and of
MANAS its close associate. Presently it will reincarnate again.

See if this in part explains my point of view. I really think we say
tings differently but basically we think the same way.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: gschueler
Sent:	Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:56 PM
To:
Subject:	Re to Dallas - Anatman

<<<It seems that "you" ( Me ?) have the power to assemble or to
disassemble
the aggregates (skandhas), and "personality" and
"individuality .">>>

The skandhas/aggregates are assembled and disassembled by karma. The
personality is a superimposition onto the skandhas (what we call an
ego is
actually an ego complex or aggregate of components, not a single one
of which
is an I, but the I is superimposed onto the collection as if it
existed as
such when it does not). The individuality is a superimposition onto
atma-buddhi, which is also a collection or aggregate.


<<<What is the Me / you that rules over the skandhas, ego and
atma/buddhi?>>>

A mayavic illusion. Grapsing onto it as if it was real is what
produces
personal karma which in turn produces the cycles of necessity. And
this whole
train is driven by ignorance.


<<<Did it (however called) not take on a garment of flesh to assist
in the
progress and development of those ? [Theosophically, I

refer to statements made in The SECRET DOCTRINE in Vol. II pp. 167,
246-7,254-5, 272-3, and others -- as they seem t present a different
picture
of the situation. ]>>>

Manifestation, the taking on of form, is mayavic restriction and
bondage. It
is the result of the Arc of Descent. Liberation or freedom is
enlightenment,
the very opposite, the result of the Arc of Ascent.


<<<Why would "IT" then abandon them? Is it because they are
inadequate or
that they have reached a parity with it? and no longer need its
assistance
?>>>

You are reifying IT, which is not a "thing" or a "being" at all.


<<<What is the nature of "conditioned reality?" And is there as a
contrast:
"unconditioned reality?">>>

Conditional reality is reality that exists in dependence on causes and
conditions, alias karma, and thus is temporary and changing. Ultimate
reality
is anything that is unconditioned, permanent, and exists independently
of
anything else. Conditional reality is dualistic. Ultimate reality is
nondualistic.


<<<How is any "Reality" to be defined? What in us or in man can see
both of
these ?>>>

Reality is defined in many ways. Mahayana Buddhism defines three
types: (1)
conditional (temporary dependent arisings), (2) ultimate (permanent
and
independent), and (3) posited or superimpositional (totally
illusionary). My
own definition of reality is anything that can be experienced because
I
believe that ultimately all we really ever have is experience. So, my
definition is an overall one that includes all three from Buddhism.


<<<My understanding is that the Skandhas and the "Monads" are
identical. The
Monads by definition are "eternal Pilgrims" over the ocean of
existence. If so
they are of the same essence as the "me" or "you".>>>

I can't agree. In fact, they are defined exactly the opposite of each
other.
An aggregate is defined as a compound, and the skandhas are simply one
type of
aggregate. The monad is defined as an indivisible unit. A compound is
the
polar opposite of an indivisible unit, and so I see monads and
aggregates as
being dualistic polar opposites. I believe that Blavatsky's use of the
word
"monads" throughout the SD and other writings is a blind because they
are not
really indivisible units at all, as she well knew. The "me" or "you"
does not
exist as such, but is simply a name that we give to those aggregates
called
the skandhas. The reason for doing so is, largely, social convention.

"when you know that the self does not exist intrinsically, you also
overcome
the conception that the aggregates which are its components exist
intrinsically -- just as when a chariot is burned, the wheels and such
that
are its parts are also burned. Candrakirti's 'Clear Words' says:

The self is imputed dependently; it is what
those who have the error of ignorance cling
to fiercely; it is regarded as the appropriator
of the five aggregates. Those who seek liberation
analyze whether this self has the character of
the aggregates. When those who seek liberation
have analyzed it in every way, they do not
observe a self"
(Tsongkhapa, Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path, p 121)

Jerry S.