Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00171)

Oct 16 2003

Dear Mauri:


As far as I know from studying H P B, and THEOSOPHY :

The word "Zen" is derived from the ancient DZYAN, (wisdom) and in
Sanskrit GNYAN, or DHYANA. All signify spiritual wisdom and knowledge
without boundaries or limits. This wisdom is primary and covers the
history of evolution from its primal beginnings. It traces it to the
present, and also gives hints as to the final Goals that its progress
would encourage: UNIVERSAL PERFECTION in Spiritual WISDOM

My questions are base on that premise. I try to apply the 5 Questions:
Why, where, when, who, how. All ancient theologies did this when in
their infancy they were a "path to wisdom" and not a dogma created by
priestcraft to mislead non-thinkers. 

FALLING ASLEEP : is passive for the brain-mind. Of course the MIND is
still active -- have you read the TRANSACTIONS of the BLAVATSKY LODGE
(pp. 64-78) ? It give you something there on that -- see
www.blavatsky.net 


REALITY ?  

Read from the SECRET DOCTRINE : Here is one --

"Cosmic Ideation is said to be non-existent during Pralayic periods, for
the simple reason that there is no one, and nothing, to perceive its
effects. There can be no manifestation of Consciousness,
semi-consciousness, or even "unconscious purposiveness," except through
the 
 
* The term Protyle is due to Mr. Crookes, the eminent chemist, who has
given that name to pre-Matter, if one may so call primordial and purely
homogeneous substances, suspected, if not actually yet found, by Science
in the ultimate composition of the atom. But the incipient segregation
of primordial matter into atoms and molecules takes its rise subsequent
to the evolution of the Seven Protyles. It is the last of these — having
recently detected the possibility of its existence on our plane — that
Mr. Crookes is in search of. vehicle of matter; that is to say, on this
our plane, wherein human consciousness in its normal state cannot soar
beyond what is known as transcendental metaphysics, it is only through
some molecular aggregation or fabric that Spirit wells up in a stream of
individual or sub-conscious subjectivity. 

And as Matter existing apart from perception is a mere abstraction, both
of these aspects of the ABSOLUTE — Cosmic Substance and Cosmic Ideation
— are mutually inter-dependent. In strict accuracy — to avoid confusion
and misconception — the term "Matter" ought to be applied to the
aggregate of objects of possible perception, and "Substance" to noumena;
for inasmuch as the phenomena of our plane are the creation of the
perceiving Ego — the modifications of its own subjectivity — all the
"states of matter representing the aggregate of perceived objects" can
have but a relative and purely phenomenal existence for the children of
our plane. As the modern Idealists would say, the co-operation of
Subject and Object results in the Sense-object or phenomenon.

But this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is the same
on all other planes; that the co-operation of the two on the planes of
their septenary differentiation results in a septenary aggregate of
phenomena which are likewise non-existent per se, though concrete
realities for the Entities of whose experience they form a part, in the
same manner as the rocks and rivers around us are real from the
stand-point of a physicist, though unreal illusions of sense from that
of the metaphysician. It would be an error to say, or even conceive such
a thing. From the stand-point of the highest metaphysics, the whole
Universe, gods included, is an illusion; but the illusion of him who is
in himself an illusion differs on every plane of consciousness; and we
have no more right to dogmatise about the possible nature of the
perceptive faculties of an Ego on, say, the sixth plane, than we have to
identify our perceptions with, or make them a standard for, those of an
ant, in its mode of consciousness. 

The pure object apart from consciousness* is unknown to us, while living
on the plane of our three-dimensional World; as we know only the mental
states it excites in the perceiving Ego. And, so long as the contrast of
Subject and Object endures — to wit, as long as we enjoy our five senses
and no more, and do not know how to divorce our all-perceiving Ego (the
Higher Self) from the thraldom of these senses — so long will it be
impossible for the personal Ego to break through the barrier which
separates it from a 
__________________________________________
Footnote

* Cosmic Ideation focussed in a principle or upadhi (basis) results as
the consciousness of the individual Ego. Its manifestation varies with
the degree of upadhi, e.g., through that known as Manas it wells up as
Mind-Consciousness; through the more finely differentiated fabric (sixth
state of matter) of the Buddhi resting on the experience of Manas as its
basis — as a stream of spiritual 
INTUITION.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

knowledge of things in themselves (or Substance).

That Ego, progressing in an arc of ascending subjectivity, must exhaust
the experience of every plane. But not till the Unit is merged in the
ALL, whether on this or any other plane, and Subject and Object alike
vanish in the absolute negation of the Nirvanic State (negation, again,
only from our plane), is scaled that peak of Omniscience — the Knowledge
of things-in-themselves; and the solution of the yet more awful riddle
approached, before which even the highest Dhyan Chohan must bow in
silence and ignorance — the unspeakable mystery of that which is called
by the Vedantins, the PARABRAHMAM. 

Therefore, such being the case, all those who sought to give a name to
the incognizable Principle have simply degraded it. Even to speak of
Cosmic Ideation — save in its phenomenal aspect — is like trying to
bottle up primordial Chaos, or to put a printed label on ETERNITY. 

What, then, is the "primordial Substance," that mysterious object of
which Alchemy was ever talking, and which became the subject of
philosophical speculation in every age? What can it be finally, even in
its phenomenal pre-differentiation? 

Even that is ALL in manifested Nature and — nothing to our senses. It is
mentioned under various names in every Cosmogony, referred to in every
philosophy, and shown to be, to this day, the ever grasp-eluding PROTEUS
in Nature. We touch and do not feel it; we look at it without seeing it;
we breathe it and do not perceive it; we hear and smell it without the
smallest cognition that it is there; for it is in every molecule of that
which in our illusion and ignorance we regard as Matter in any of its
states, or conceive as a feeling, a thought, an emotion. . . . 

In short, it is the "upadhi," or vehicle, of every possible phenomenon,
whether physical, mental, or psychic. In the opening sentences of
Genesis, as in the Chaldean Cosmogony; in the Puranas of India, and in
the Book of the Dead of Egypt, it opens everywhere the cycle of
manifestation. It is termed "Chaos," and the face of the waters,
incubated by the Spirit proceeding from the Unknown, under whatever
name. (See "Chaos, Theos, Kosmos.")"
S D I 328-30

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

There is lot to think over there, if well understood.  

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:49 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net; 
Subject: Dallas's "Where does duality come from," etc

10/15, Dallas wrote (at least on BN-Study, 
for a start, apparently ...): <<Where does 
duality come from?>>

Maybe from a kind of falling asleep, in a 
sense, I'm guessing.

<<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?>>

I don't know, but, seeing as "exoterizing" is 
popular around here, I'm wondering if I 
should respond to that with something like: 
Hmm ... there seem to be so many models of 
reality, at least in "exoteric terms" (with 
or without quotes, I suppose).

<<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. 
-----------

Seems that there are so many exoteric 
thoughts on this plane. I wonder if 
"exoteric" should occasionally be offered in 
italics, or with quotes, especially in a 
"Theosophic context, because, (apparently?), 
the nature of a certain kind of "exoteric" 
doesn't seem (?) to go over too well in a 
number of cases (apparently?), in that its 
"meaningful contrast," say, in a sense, or 
"esoteric," doesn't seem to go over too well 
either, in a number of cases (apparently?), 
so ... ^:-/ ...