Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00419)

Mauri <mhart@idirect.ca> wrote

Leon wrote: <<<<<But in either case, the individual 
Self cannot cease to exist -- until this entire Cosmos
depletes its total energy and finally dies, some 
countless billions of Solar years from now.>>>

M: One might wonder how you, Leon, might 
"more-specifically" define (or at least "exoterize 
about") "individual Self" and "cease to exist" in your 
"intended context/sense," not that you haven't given us 
plenty of samples along those lines, so far, ("but"?) ... 
Isn't there an "intuitive" from of "defining" (or 
something like that?) that we all tend to have trouble 
exoterizing "specifically enough," in a "more direct" 
sense re our notions about esoteric/experiential 
"truth/reality"... 

So, try this on for size. The individual "self" is that zero-point around 
which spins all the informational patterns of primal force that represents 
our individal life ray's particular experience. 

That point can be either superimposed on its original source, (in Absolute, 
Pralaya or Devachan space) or it can be projected into the phenomenal cosmic 
space as an independent "being" in all of the seven fold coenergetic natures 
or fields of that phenomenal space. In the lowest energy "physical" field of 
cosmic space, that "experience" is gathered through the physical senses 
(which are replicated analogously in each inner or higher field of 
consciousness). 

To picture this, imagine the primal source of "everything" (Absolute reality) 
as a spherical zero-point "singularity" around which spins infinite lines of 
force that can each be projected outward, in infinite separate radial 
directions, as a single pointed ray of spinning energy -- like the sun 
projects its individual light rays into the spherical space surrounding it -- 
each ray representing an individual "soul," "self," "life," or seven fold 
conscious entity-- that are independent of all other rays. (Although, all 
dependently arising from the same source with the analogous and 
correspondingly identical 7 fold hyperspace field nature.) 

Look at the (exoteric) diagram of this continuous linear fractal involutional 
field projection, and see if that helps you envision (esoterically) the 
single ray projecting from the primal zero-point and creating 
multidimensional triune inner spherical fields, each with their own separated 
zero-point centers... "As above, so below," or "As outer, so inner."
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif 

[Mauri] "One might wonder" about some "esoteric" things (?), 
but, since we all seem to have "explained about" those 
kinds of topics on these lists, already, in our various 
"own ways," seems that there's not much point in 
asking, again, is there ... So I guess I'm wondering and 
speculating about "esoteric things" on these lists more 
than really expecting "specific enough" answers," so 
much, from anybody (seeing as "anwers," in general, 
tend to be kind of one-sidedly exoteric on this plane?). 
But don't we all have senses about things that might, 
occasionally, go beyond exoterics, in some sense, (even 
if we have trouble exoterizing "specifically enough" 
about such senses) ... How else could we even hope to 
"transcend karma"... (ie, whatever "transcend karma" 
might "mean" in "para-exoteric terms") ...

[Leon] Transcending karma has to do only with your own self realization... 
And, all these exoteric models can do is help you envision the cyclic basis 
of karma. How you handle the transcending of your own karma is for you to 
comrehend its action and reaction for yourself, on your own path, using your 
own inner senses. No one can help you with that.

Gerald wrote: <<In deep meditation the self 
disappears because it merges into the not-self and there 
is no sense of a separate self at all. Our sense of being a 
separate self is only experienced on the lower planes.>>

[Leon] Only the "sense" of separateness of self disappears, but the 
realization and particular experiences of that individual "self" encoded 
within the patterns of energy remaining in the overall spinergy of the primal 
"Self" do not disappear. 

This is obvious, since the only place we have physical "senses" are on the 
lower planes. But, there are also analogous "senses" on the higher planes -- 
since all the senses are functions of each zero-point itself -- that we 
cannot imagine until we get there and experience them. When I am in deep 
meditation, I "know" I am one with (or not separate from) the primal Self. 
But, I am still "aware" it is MY "Samahadi" and MY "bliss" experience. And, 
I'm also aware that the "Voice of the Silence" I hear is not my voice. 
Buddha said, we must "never" stop being "vigilant." That is the practice of 
the Bodhisatva, who is always "awake." ... While, the Pratyeka Buddha seeks 
to "escape" into Nirvana and, thus, kill out his separate self and die 
forever (or at least until the next Manvantara, when he comes out again to 
start all over as a ray of light). But, each to his own path...

[Mauri] And one might wonder (in "basic terms"?) how can "a 
self" be "separate" while it's a "self" at the same time, 
unless ... In other words, isn't there some kind of 
manasic, basic, inherent assumption to the effect that 
one's sense of "selfness" "reality-independence," or 
one's sense of "Basic" "self-intrinsic" reality, (ie, in the 
kind of very basic terms by which the plainer 
dictionary definition of "self" might fall a tad short?), is 
not really something that can be separate/d and 
independent ("independent" in the sense of being 
"selfish" or "self-consistent/exclusive") simultaneously 
(with being "separate," in whatever sense), other than 
in whatever creative/exoteric/modelistic (ie, mayavic, or 
separatist) terms ... Seems to me that the concept of 
"self" might do with some more of a certain kind of 
ongoing defining (and "realizing about"?) for those 
who might have some interest in what "self" might 
mean beyond it's conventional, simplistic, or exoteric 
sense. That is, I'm speculating here that there might be 
(for all I know) "more" to "self" in the sense that, from 
the perspective of the "exoteric self" might seem unlike 
any kind of "self" at all, and yet might be referred to (in 
exoteric terms) in some kind of centric, laya pointish, 
(or "self-ish") way, as a means of "intentionally 
indicating" something about the state of "awareness" or 
"Beness" or whatever which, in turn, might (for all I 
know) have no "direct-enough relation" to any kind of 
exoteric, "present self" sense ... so that even the use of 
the word "self" might seem (and/or "be"?) erroneous ...
^:-) ...

[Leon] Well, I hope what I said above might help you you find out the answer 
for your "self." </:-)> Although, I think you are on the right track.

G<<Karma is both personal and collective. The "laws 
of motion" are relative, and chaotic (karmic) attractors 
influence our motion all the time. Chaos and statistical 
randomness are part of our collective karma.>>

[Mauri] One might wonder if the generally apparent 
unpredictableness of karma might tend to be generally 
interpreted as "chaos," and whether there are any forms 
of "unkarmic chaos" (which might be a somewhat silly 
question from a "Higher" perspective (?) from which 
"chaos" might be seen as exoteric and ...)...

[Leon] If I knew what you meant by "exoteric" and what Jerry means by "Chaos" 
and "statistical randomness" I might agree with you. By, then, I don't buy 
those latter two sceientific terms -- since, I don't think even the 
scientists who invented them know what they mean. <\^:-)>

<<<[Leon] Yes, the illusion is the "thinking" that the 
self is separate from that which gave it being.>>>

G<<Rather, the illusion that it is separate from 
anything at all. >>

[Mauri] But maybe that was just Leon's exoteric/scientized 
version of an answer, for all I know, that might've been 
meant to apply "in the language of this age," say ... For 
all I know, maybe he feels that saying "separate from 
anything at all" might be "too confusing" or something 
... Beyond me. Anyway, I tend to agree with Gerald's 
answer, since I tend to feel that saying "which gave it 
being" is, essentially, a concession to exoterics, 
duality/multiplicity, and to maya in its essential sense. 

Which "essential sense" I tend to see as "essentially 
non-comparative," whereby the "more 
exoteric/conventional" word "illusion" might be too 
misleading, in many cases, as it might, in general, tend 
to imply (in keeping with conventional influences?) 
that "maya" is "just a comparative illusion," really, in 
"essence" (as per Leon's "which gave it being"?), 
tending to promote a form of "over scientized" 
approach to something that cannot (in "essence") be 
exoterized even as much as by saying or hinting at 
comparative illusions or unknowns, if those 
"unknowns" are (as I tend to suspect) in no way 
comparable or knowable by anything other than 
esoteric/experiential means that totally transcend our 
exoteric notions about "reality/truth."

[Leon] Right. What gives the self being is what gives all else being. And, 
that means, everything. So, why make a big discussion about it? When one is 
discussing Cosmic engineering -- so to speak -- how can it be "over 
scientized" (whatever the hell that means)? Besides, what has metaphysics to 
do with "science" -- which is limited to objective analysis of particulars to 
induce the generalities -- rather than the metaphysical method of deducing 
the particulars from general principles? My theories may be scientific (in 
a sense), but there is no "science" in it (in the conventional definition of 
that word) since ABC cannot be falsified (nor can theosophical metaphysics) 
using the scientific method.

L<<<So long as this Cosmos exists, that separate 
zero-point of consciousness that we consider our 
individual self, will continue to exist -- since its 
memory will remain in the zero-point spinergy of its 
origin -- which is (with relation to this Cosmos) eternal. 
>>>

G<<I can't agree with this. It eliminates the possibility 
of liberation. Anyone can liberate themselves from 
karma and maya at any time, and the Cosmos will keep 
right on going for those left within it. As individuals, 
we enter manifestation at some point and leave at some
point, while manifestation itself keeps right on going 
without beginning or end.>>

(Mauri] But, (possibly?), "individual self" might be defined in 
such various ways that ... Whatever ... Of course (?), 
on the other hand, in a "reality" where there are no 
"other hands," well ... how could we have "which gave 
it beings" or comparisons of any kind ... ^:-) ... I tend to 
agree with Gerald's response. 

[Leon] That's okay with me. But, on the other hand, I take the view that 
anyone can also liberate themselves from their past karma, and also choose a 
path of action for future karma that allows their self to remain "eternally 
vigilant." That's the path that I like to travel on (as I'm sure the Buddha 
took in the Manvantara preceeding this one). Could that mean that I choose 
to be a Buddha in this one, and become Adi Buddha in the next? Well, that's 
for me to know and for you and Jerry to find out (if you don't cop out along 
the way and shuffle off to Nirvana beforehand. <|:-)))>>

Best Wishes,

LHM

<<Speculatively,
Mauri>>