[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Re to Dallas - Guru-Chela and Blinds

Jan 12, 2003 05:37 AM
by dalval14

Jan 12 2003

Dear Gerry:

Well we are discussing Theosophy, so the terms and descriptions will
have a theosophical slant.

I would however say in my case that I have read widely and do not
think I am limited to that study or method alone. I must however say
that to me it is the best I have so far found as its coherence and its
logic is remarkable. I am also very familiar with several of the
Indian systems of philosophy and with the Buddhist schools and some of
the Tibetan ones.

But I would say, that taking all. these into account, the Theosophical
is the clearest and most comprehensive. Also it resolves many of the
gaps and cul-de-sacs encountered because of differences in meaning
between these many schools.

Let me then put in a few notes below. Thank you for your good notes,
they are valuable, as always,



-----Original Message-----
From: gschueler
Sent:	Friday, January 10, 2003 6:38 PM
Subject:	Dallas - Re: Guru-Chela and Blinds

<<<DTB	The aggregation of skandhas that provide the "Chela"
personality with a
basis for its consciousness and current living is I think
logically to be traced to the central attractive point namely the
spiritual SELF ( ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS ). while the aggregation
may be temporary and always changing ( Nitya pralaya ) the central and
Consciousness is forever the same or else there could be
nothing that could progress or improve.
If we look on the universe as the area in which spirit and matter
and both of them are immortal, and eternal forces, their
distributive centers ( Monads, or any other designation) are equally
under the
same LAW that causes the whole and permits their individual
existence. Am I wrong in this, or do I not say it right ?>>>

Part right and part wrong, I think. The "central attractive point"
that never
changes is not our own conditionally real principles, but the nondual
While the mayavic substance that is both matter and spirit is
"immortal" per
se, the forms that they take change continuously. The Monads
themselves are
under no "law" at all, but rather their "rays." Maybe its me, but you
seem to
confuse the monad with its rays sometimes.


DTB	Monad as "rays" I have not encountered. unless you mean they are
"rays" or "sparks" from the ABSOLUTE (S D II 167, I 106 ) and,

they unite with the "soul" ( Buddhi-Manas linked to Kama-Manas) (S D
I 119)

If the Monad guides evolution around it by influencing other monads of
lesser experience (as substance) then we have the mayavic concept of
periodical forms and their temporary intelligence. But without a
purpose this is not very logical. Here has to be a cause, then
materials (substances) and a guiding ruling SPIRIT. But what is the
AIM...Nirvana is "freedom: from illusion. So WHAT IS IT ? Why would
one desire it ?



<<<DTB	I think the confusion may be over the meaning I attribute to
"individuality" (as the spiritual aspect of Man), and, "personality"
( to which I ascribe the assembly of the skandhas that form the 4
upadhis or vehicles).>>>

An "individuality" is a separate and unique self be it material,
mental, or
spiritual; HPB uses it equivalent to atman-buddhi, but such a thing
does not
really (ie inherently or independently) exist. However, if you want to
each I-Not-I Monad an "individuality" then I could agree to this, but
truth is that there is no difference between "yours" and "mine," none
whatsoever, so the term is always going to be a bit misleading.


DTB	Agreed at that level there would be no difference. Yet why this
level of differentiation even if temporary and mayavic?



<<<DTB: INDIVIDUALITY is immortal and eternal.>>>

The problem here, Dallas (correct me if I am wrong), is that you are
HPB's words. Any mystic or Adept will tell you that in samadhi or a
experience there is no separate self, no "individuality" at all, but
rather a
profound and intense sense of the oneness of all things, and this
sense of
oneness is atma, collective rather than individualistic. The very word
individuality implies/connotes separation, and this sense of
separation that
we experience on the lower planes is maya.



DTB	True Samadhi is difficult to explain or to remember as the
experiencer has to use the brain mind presently -- and that seems
beyond its area of experience -- too vast. I believe you are right in
what you say.

However if and when one has such an experience, the memory of the
event does not fade, and further, the capacity to be one and all is
not passed unnoticed. (even if it is imagined and blurred). It then
becomes a matter of a search to understand how and why. Is this how a
confrontation of the Lower Mind with the HIGHER SELF would appear in
retrospect ? As I see it there is a moment of BEING IT and then it
becomes memory.


<<<DTB: As far as I a aware there is a single simple rule that defines
ethics/morals: the voluntary observance of the laws of Nature -- a
harmonizing of ones' self with KARMA.>>>

Who of us is smart enough to know exactly what will "harmonize our
self with
karma" (I haven't yet found my self to so harmonize) and who is smart
to know "the laws of nature?" I see this sentence as an intellectual
around the real issue. You may as well answer "Its God's will" which
means nothing. For an example, one of nature's rules is that life
feeds on
life, and if thats so then what is wrong with eating meat? What can be
with killing animals, and why don't Theosophists practice cannibalism?
Nature's laws are harsh and impersonal.


DTB	I agree -- since we are not "smart enough" I would adopt an
attitude of being virtuous and brotherly in everything I do.
Harmonize -- one would have to know all causes for present situations
and coming events.

Karma is inescapable. How t bow gracefully before the inevitable and
also make sure the future is not loaded with more problems.

As to food? Some yogis try to be most abstemious. But no where I know
is it recommended that we be careless of the right to live.

Killing to live seems most cruel t me. What right have we to
terminate anther's tenure of living? Plant life is of a lower order
than animal life in terms of intelligence. life on plant, fruit,
roots, seeds, milk, water, appears to me to be more logical than
hunting or fishing. I would not call those natural rules of life.
Man-made and constructed, perhaps, but not the most peaceful or
brotherly -- are we not supposed to treat the whole of nature as
brother monads each in their place of ascent ?

Who are we to destroy or alter the harmony of NATURE ? Yet, we do
it all the time and generally rue the consequences -- and fail to
learn from them.

Best wishes as always,



Have a good day,

Jerry S.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application