Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00731)

In a message dated 03/28/04 11:10:29 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:

>Hallo all of you,
>
>My views are:
>
>The following might be of help:
>"PS The rejection of self, the anatma doctrine of Buddhism, seems on the
>surface to be diametrically opposed to Theosophy, which posits a spiritual
>Self. But Blavatsky clearly says that this spiritual Self is a ray or
>emanation into our planetary chain from something she calls a "divine
>Monad", and so seeing this spiritual Self as maya is not anti-Theosophy
>at all. And the divine Monad is not a self, so there is really no problem
>at all."

Morton,

Putting quotes around that statement makes it appear that you are quoting an 
authority of some sort or another. But judging by the conclusion, I can't see 
the logic in his thinking. (I hope you are not quoting yourself.:-)

Blavatsky also said that everything in the universe is conscious. She also 
said that the monad is substance or matter, and consciousness is spirit. So, 
how can we separate substance (whether manifest in Manvantara or resting in 
Pralaya) from spirit or consciousness. 

She also said that the Absolute or primal space (that always is, was or will 
be) must be in constant motion, and that the Absolute is both empty and full, 
one and many. Therefore, that abstract motion -- (which can only be, as an 
aspect of the Absolute zero-point, pure spin) -- must be the root of all 
"substance" (matter or energy)... And, that such Absolute emptiness or Absolute 
stillness (which such spin motion, angular momentum, or primal force surrounds) 
must be the root of spirit or consciousness. 

It follows, then -- since we can't separate the two aspects of subjectivity 
and objectivity from each other -- that the "Divine Monad" (being one triune 
field of consciousness, whether unmanifest or potential, or manifest and 
existent) must have an individual spirit or consciousness at its still center (which 
cannot change its state or its inherent properties). If the theosophical 
statement "as above, so below" is true, and "everything in the universe can be 
explained by analogy and correspondence" -- then all rays of consciousness 
descending from the Divine Monad must have an analogous self existence, and thus, a 
potential individual self consciousness and relatively eternal continuity of 
existence. (I'm sure the Dhyan Chohans knew who they were, still are, and will 
be through countless manvantara's to come. :-) Just think (meditate on) 
about that, and let your intuition tell you, what the continuity of past, present, 
and future existing simultaneously in the moment really rests on? 

Perhaps, we are confusing what Buddha meant by the "self," with the higher 
Self or single point of spirit that is the "consciousness" of any eternal Monad 
-- rather than seeing it as the false or lower self (identified with the 
"substance" of either the Atma, the monad, or the body fields)... Or, confusing 
Buddha's "self" with the real individual or potential self consciousness of the 
zero-point center of those "fields of consciousness" or forms of matter... 
That, as theosophy holds, are identified or analogous with the latent laya points 
of individual consciousness of the eternal "Sleeping mother of Cosmos" -- 
whose child is the Solar System, of which we are each a part. 

Therefore, as above so below... If the Mother has a latent individuality or 
Self that is eternal, and does not identify itself with its temporary forms -- 
then, so has and does all its offspring (the awake and enlightened one's, that 
is). 

But then, the confusion is understood. Buddha's teaching was directed toward 
his ignorant followers. 
HPB's teaching is directed toward educated and hopefully intelligent students 
of theosophy. The difference is obvious. But, neither of them expected to 
form a New Religion around their teachings. (Although Blavatsky was wise enough 
to avoid it in quotable writing, Buddha wasn't. Or, perhaps, his followers just 
didn't listen to him carefully enough.:-) 

So, it's no wonder that the exoteric Buddhist gurus have such a hard job 
explaining what Anatta means, or what Buddha meant when he spoke of the self... 
(Or, why the pseudo theosophists, and their pseudo religions and magical baloney 
have to rest their ideas of what's true or what isn't on the authority of 
scrambled, second hand revelatory teachings channeled from imaginary descended 
Masters and interpreted by relatively ignorant and biased recorders.) 

Be aware that when we speak of "eternal," we mean at least the lifetime of 
this Solar System and its planetary rounds and races. I'm sure the Buddha 
understood all that, and his words about it have been misinterpreted or distorted 
about as much as the teachings of all the founders of all the other dogmatized 
religions. The Buddhist Gurus are still arguing about it as much, I'm sure, as 
are the Hebrew rabbis, the Muslim mullahs, The Hindu gurus, and the Christian 
priests. 

So, lets not put Theosophy in that same boat with all the rest of the fakirs 
and the fogheads. Theosophical metaphysics is essentially, a strictly logical 
and scientific teaching based on the three fundamental principles, and should 
be discussed solely in those terms. It's pointless to argue about the 
Buddhist's or any other organized religion's exoteric interpretations -- when we 
have all we can do trying to understand the subtle esoteric depths of theosophy 
-- without getting caught up in side issues. Therefore, it's wise for us to 
stay focussed, and let all others go on believing whatever they want to. 

Leonardo </:-)>
(who is, was, and will be here, there, and everywhere else -- forever)