Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00143)

>Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Gerald Schueler <gschueler@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re to Leon
>
><<<[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. >>>
>
>Three quick points on the above:
>
>1. The "particular experiences" and "patterns of energy" and "overall 
spinenergy"
>are all mayavic and meaningless to the Monad. In an inherent sense, they
>do not disappear, because they were never "real" in the first place. In
>a conditional sense these all do disappear in what is called enlightenment
>or liberation, and their total disappearance is exactly what liberation
>is all about.

Real and unreal are only subjective experiential concepts, as is 
enlightenment or liberation. They have nothing to do the true reality of 
eternal motion, which always is, whether asleep or awake. So, how can it be 
meaningless to the Monad? Since the monad is actually the (two in one) fields 
that always remains the trinity of Atma, Buddhi, Manas (or their precursors 
in spinergy). Therefore, so long as there is such a triune monad -- since no 
circle or field of energy can exist without being connected to the absolute 
zero-point in a spiral of three fields -- it exists in itself. Thus even the 
Monad of Parabrahm, or Brahma, can still be both conscious and substantial 
(or their precursors) -- whether awake or asleep. 

The problem here is that I am talking objective theosophical science, and you 
are talking subjective Buddhist psychology. The two points of view, while 
entirely compatible, cannot be conflated. (The third point of view is their 
synthesis.) Therefore, to Parabrahm, Brahma is not an illusion (although the 
concept of its thinking it is permanent as a conditioned reality, is). HPB 
made it a point to fully clarify these distinctions. 

>2. On the lower planes we experience separation. On the higher planes we
>experience oneness. In nonduality we experience something else altogether.
>So, how do we know if we exist as individuals or not? We can not know.
>There is no way to know if there is only one Monad or countless infinite
>Monads that are exactly alike. We can make an assumption, but there is
>no way to know.

Agreed. There is no way to know by "objective" experience... But perfectly 
capable of being known through logical deductions based on the three 
fundamental principles. The monad, beginning in spin and experienced 
periodically as emanated fields, must exists as a triune reality -- under all 
condition and pre conditions. Therefore, since the emanated progression, or 
involution of monads must follow fundamental laws of cycles, the universe is 
both fractal and holographic. And, every monad is a unique individuality 
that has it's own laya or zero-point. Not to say that these zero-points 
cannot be absolutely coadunate, each in its own absolute space when returned 
to spin. (That absolute space is the one thing we cannot know.) 

>3, When we try to assign "experiences" and "patterns" to Monads, then they
>are no longer alike, and no longer equal. We cannot have it both ways.
>Either the divine Monads are equal or they are not, and if not then all
>sorts of hierarchy problems appear, which is exactly what we have in 
>conditional reality where monads are not equal.

I don't understand what you mean by equal. From the scientific viewpoint, 
all monads are exactly equal or identical in their field structures. From 
the theosophical point of view, they are all equal in their potential. From 
the religious or psychological point of view the differences or inequalities 
are solely dependent on the extent of their evolutionary experiences. Again, 
we cannot conflate the religious or subjective view with the scientific or 
objective view. They must be considered as an absolute synthesis. 
Therefore, they are both equal and unequal, one and many, empty and full -- 
as theosophy teaches. The conventional Buddhist psychological or subjective 
view was an attempt to simplify these paradoxes, by limiting the teaching to 
what the conditioned mind can comprehend, and that are sufficient to justify 
all the practices toward attaining enlightenment. To me, that means lighting 
up the mind with the experience of spiritual consciousness -- that leaves the 
rational mind, brain and body as the obedient tools of the higher intuitive 
mind. It doesn't mean giving up my monad, or the higher three principles of 
conscious existence -- even in Nirvana.

As for the hierarchy problems, what are they? It's relatively simple when 
you analyze the mathematics of the Book of Dzyan in conjunction with its 
hierarchical tree -- which follows consistent cyclic laws. All laws of 
electricity, as HPB pointed out, are evolved from these fundamental laws of 
periodicity.
>
><<< 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 "Samadhi" and
>MY "bliss" experience. >>>
>
>There are two kinds of Samadhi, salvakalpa and nirvakalpa (if memory serves?)
>with and without traces. The above describes the lower samadhis which contain
>what are called "traces." These are experiences on the higher planes. The
>higher samadhis are totally without any "I" or "MY" involved at all. These
>are nondualistic experiences.

Yes, the "experience" is non dualistic. But, what you consider from a 
psychological point of view has little to do with my consideration of the 
scientific rationale behind all of reality. Samadhi of any kind can only be 
a subjective or psychological experience. Therefore, there is always the one 
who is experiencing that can never be separated from the experience itself. 
When I experience pure Samadhi or unity with the source of all, I am that 
source and, therefore, my individuality never ceases. If there is no 
individual "I" or "MY" that is having that experience -- then there is no 
experience worth talking about... And, that is pure nihilism which I cannot 
subscribe to logically. How can consciousness ever cease to be? And, even 
God consciousness is still individual consciousness. The only "traces" you 
are talking about has nothing to do with the subjective individuality, but 
only with the conditioned or objective forms of the eternal spinergy that I 
am and that we all are individually, separately, or in unity. When I am in 
"nirvakalpa" I may forget (temporarily) all the forms of my life's 
experiences, and lose my sense of separateness, but I never forget that I AM 
having such direct experience. I'm sure the Buddha felt the same way when he 
was in that state of Samadhi. (But, I'll ask him the next time I see him, and 
let you know. :-)

LHM

>
>Jerry S.