Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00162)

Dallas,
Hope my views may be of some assistance on some of the questions you 
pose.
First off I must explain that I am only rescent to theosophy and by 
no means have read all that has been written on the subject.A thinker 
I have been for as long as I can remember and theosophy seems to be 
the house I now reside in. To cut a long story short, I tread the 
same path as all and through guidance from somewhere (know not where) 
have been lead here.
Duality
The absolute is 1 as are we, as we are the absolute. There is no 
division except in maya(illusion) Maya was created to allow us(The 
absolute)to experience "life".Duality is also maya as it is only the 
polar opposit of the one. We as individual characters have free will 
giving us choice. Choice in all things, the freedom to choose our own 
destiny wether that to love or to hate, selfish or selfless or 
material or spiritual. The road we choose is up to us and me thinks 
the balance be swayed tooooooooo far in the wrong direction.
We require, more now than ever before a huge injection of love, 
selflessness and spirituality and I hope that will come from 
theosophy. 
To me the bottom line in theosophy is the brotherhood of man. That is 
not the way things appear to be playing out. Humanity (to me) is 
headed in the direction of selfishness, material and worst of all 
hate and is spreading like a plague, it requires a heafty counter 
balance.Maybe we could learn something from the sixties when love was 
in the air and people cared about each other.
There is no third entity to percieve, the only entity to percieve is 
your character (the polar opposite of personality)and that is but a 
letter in the eternal book of the absolute.
In nature 1+1=1 as there is only ever one and all else is maya, and 
why? To experience "life", to evolve and go back to the place where 
it all started.The absolute that is all. It is the journey which 
creates through choice a reason for existence and not the end result 
that started it all. We live in our minds. All else is fantasy, a 
creation of the imagination overseen by those that know better, whom 
I some day would like to meet but according to the mahatma letters I 
have only a 1 in 10,000 chance of achieving and that better than no 
chance at all.
Time is immaterial, only exists on this plane of existence. Patience 
is a virtue to be rendered harmless.
Hope you make some sense of this dwodle
love ALL-WAYS
henry 

-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W. Dallas TenBreoeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Oct 15 2003
> 
> Dear Mauri:
> 
> re Duality and Theosophy
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that H P B's presentation of THEOSOPHY offers 
us a
> mind-opening and a mind-revealing potential of original thinking. 
It is
> a pretty wide vista, and may take us (as thinkers) out of the 
world of
> confusing limitations and paradoxical contrasts we all know so 
well. At
> least I get frustrated with the details, and try to find some 
simple way
> of settling the mess (in my mind).
> 
> Let me say this, and perhaps I am wrong: Seems to me you are using 
words
> to diffuse thoughts.
> 
> Where does duality come from?
> 
> What is its purpose?
> 
> Is it possible we can perceive that besides duality there has to be 
a
> third and independent "power to perceive," both, or am I wrong?
> 
> Where does this "third" entity / power / point of view arise?
> 
> Is in Nature or solely in Man ?
> 
> What is its purpose? Has it any relation to the Mind and thinking?
> 
> Can "SPIRIT" think of , or understand "MATTER,?" and vice versa? 
> 
> Is the function of the mind to be able to identify and reflect on 
both? 
> 
> Does the Metaphysical concept of an ABSOLUTE BACKGROUND (as a 
starting
> point, no matter how long ago) make sense?
> 
> Would "manifestation" in general, be a division of that "ONE?"
> 
> Possibly, might it be the source for the contrasting duality: 
SPIRIT
> and MATTER ?
> 
> If so, then how do we, as free, creative, and independent thinkers 
and
> "speculators" get to live and think about such things?
> 
> Why are we alive? What are our functions and duties, or are there 
none?
> 
> Now what about time? When did this begin? And was indefinable
> "duration" before that ?
> 
> Are we not somewhere in the middle of an on-going study of "things 
as
> they are?" And while studying and discovering, do we not also live 
our
> lives? Why?
> 
> Are we supposed to find answers? Is this an insolvable puzzle? 
Great
> thinkers have found and presented all kinds of answers. How can we
> learn enough to rate them on logic, and value?
> 
> Or are we endlessly to speculate in a closed loop? How did we ever 
get
> there? Do we make the "loop" or are we trapped? What tools, if 
any,
> have we got to get out of such a trap (if we recognize it?).
> 
> If present differences and examples of duality and conflict and
> misunderstandings exist, how do you think they began?
> 
> Are we to do anything about them (for ourselves, at least)?
> 
> Why should we accept anyone's point of view if we cannot prove it 
for
> ourselves? -- even, what the Buddha is reputed to have said?
> 
> By the way, logically, (to me) duality cannot exist with a single
> source. 
> Add 1 + 2 and you get 3. 
> 
> If you assume the 1 is not manifesting, but an "eternal 
background"
> that does not participate actively in "manifestation" (as THEOSOPHY
> does), then 2 and 3 are by themselves, and they are unable to
> describe each other. 
> 
> In duality, there is no perspective.
> 
> Geometrically, if try to place 2 parallel lines together, they never
> meet but go on indefinitely in time and space. But that is not the
> case, lines cross each other all the time. Only an eternal and 
endless
> parallelism would exist. Right ? 
> 
> Does this generate the logical necessity for a 3 ? As an
> independent, free, and self-knowing reference point. Is our "mind" 
this
> " 3 " ?
> 
> In which case we have 4 : 1 = ABSOLUTE,, 2 = SPIRIT, 3 = 
MATTER,
> and 4 = MIND (in the way I think of these, and without further
> definitions).Is this possibly correct and agreeable?
> 
> Same with esoteric and exoteric. When invisible thought is made 
visible
> by words or sounds to another, then it becomes exoteric -- no longer
> "self-contained," but exposed to review and criticism or help in
> improving it.
> 
> Can you help?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> =====================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mauri 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 7:43 PM
> To: study@b...
> Subject: re duality and Theosophy
> 
> Dallas wrote: <<There are in the universe 
> and our world two divergent streams of life. 
> One builds and constructs. It is SPIRITUAL. 
> In fact the whole of manifestation is built 
> on the one law of universal brotherhood -- a 
> spiritual brotherhood.The other destroys 
> because it is self-centered selfish and 
> treats all others as strangers to be either 
> feared or despised.>>
> 
> I tend to suspect that the nidanic 
> (Hinayanic; see SD I page 38) "karmic 
> tendency" of people in general is, in effect, 
> to "exoterize" their dualistic, mayavic 
> environment to the extent that various kinds 
> of belief systems and elaborate "theoretical" 
> and "real" models/paradigms have become "real 
> over time." In other words, as long as that 
> kind of "exotericism" (in terms of "reality 
> making") is catered to, whether in the name 
> of Theosophy, or otherwise, then there will 
> be no end of duality (or "essential duality") 
> for such people, in basic terms, I suspect. 
> Of course, on the other hand ... Not that ... 
> That is, there would seem to be no end of 
> "other hands" and "not that's" on this 
> particular karmc/mayavic plane, as I tend to 
> see it, so I tend to suspect that as long as 
> there are "Theosophists" who continue to 
> split "Monads," even, and continue on as if 
> Theosophy were exoteric and "essentially 
> dualistic," then there will be no end of 
> whatever "good/bad and in between" such 
> people may "karmically create over time."
> 
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
> 
> PS Okay, how about "no end" at least not 
> "any time soon" ... Or maybe I have it all
> wrong: maybe a manvantara just SEEMS like a 
> long time ... Hmm ...