Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00037)

In a message dated 06/06/04 9:37:10 PM, prmoliveira@yahoo.com writes:

>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>
>> I hope you take all this non personally, and if you have any comments, or 
>> wish to further discuss these ideas (coming from HPB, WQJ, myself, 
>>or others) -- 
>
>> please refer to the points made, or the ideas themselves, and not 
>>to the one's who present them.
>
>Your posting places an importance on both knowledge and thought that 
>does not seem to be present in HPB's writings, imo. I am including a 
>few quotes from the Bowen Notes which are indicative that knowledge 
>and thought are viewed by HPB as means to an end in the search for 
>Truth. Theosophy, after all, did not begin in 1888 when "The Secret 
>Doctrine" was published. As HPB suggested again and again throughout 
>her writings, Theosophy is a timeless inquiry into Truth, which is 
>both immemorial and universal, it is a living Wisdom. 

If both knowledge and thought are "means to an end," i.e, experiencing (and 
comprehending) the highest spiritual nature of reality or ultimate Truth, then 
they are absolutely essential and of paramount importance to that inquiry and 
search for that Wisdom. This refers to both right knowledge and right thought 
in one's meditative practice. That's all I implied in my previous posts. HPB 
also implied that knowledge and wisdom cannot be separated -- since Yoga or 
"skill in the performance of action" requires them both.

>"She talked a good deal about the "Fundamental Principle." She says: 
>If one imagines that one is going to get a satisfactory picture of 
>the constitution of the Universe from the S.D. one will get only 
>confusion from its study. It is not meant to give any such final 
>verdict on existence, but to LEAD TOWARDS THE TRUTH. She repeated 
>this latter expression many times. 

Agreed. Just as correct knowledge of the true nature of ultimate Reality by 
the "intuitive student" -- who must find his own path toward "picturing the 
constitution of the Universe" -- leads toward wisdom and enlightenment. Such 
wisdom is the comprehension of the real nature of that TRUTH -- which is 
synonymous with that Reality. All this most certainly has to be based on knowledge, 
understanding, and acceptance of the three Fundamental Principles -- which can 
only come about through proper study and meditative thought upon the 
metaphysics that is based on those principles -- as taught in the Secret Doctrine to 
"those who have eyes to see and ears to hear" (that is synonymous with those 
"intuitive students"). 

>It is worse than useless going to those whom we imagine to be 
>advanced students (she said) and asking them to give us 
>an "interpretation" of the S.D. They cannot do it. If they try, all 
>they give are cut and dried exoteric renderings which do not 
>remotely resemble the Truth. To accept such interpretation means 
>anchoring ourselves to fixed ideas, whereas Truth lies beyond any 
>ideas we can formulate or express. Exoteric interpretations are all 
>very well, and she does not condemn them so long as they are taken 
>as pointers for beginners, and are not accepted by them as anything 
>more. Many persons who are in, or who will in the future be in the 
>T.S. are of course potentially incapable of any advance beyond the 
>range of a common exoteric conception. But there are, and will be 
>others, and for them she sets out the following and true way of 
>approach to the S.D.
>
>This mode of thinking (she says) is what the Indians call Jnana 
>Yoga. As one progresses in Jnana Yoga one finds conceptions arising 
>which though one is conscious of them, one cannot express nor yet 
>formulate into any sort of mental picture. As time goes on these 
>conceptions will form into mental pictures. This is a time to be on 
>guard and refuse to be deluded with the idea that the new found and 
>wonderful picture must represent reality. It does not. As one works 
>on one finds the once admired picture growing dull and unsatisfying, 
>and finally fading out or being thrown away. This is another danger 
>point, because for the moment one is left in a void without any 
>conception to support one, and one may be tempted to revive the cast-
>off picture for want of a better to cling to. The true student will, 
>however, work on unconcerned, and presently further formless gleams 
>come, which again in time give rise to a larger and more beautiful 
>picture than the last. But the learner will now know that no picture 
>will ever represent the Truth. This last splendid picture will grow 
>dull and fade like the others. And so the process goes on, until at 
>last the mind and its pictures are transcended and the learner 
>enters and dwells in the World of NO FORM, but of which all forms 
>are narrowed reflections."
>
>Let me repeat her statement: "But the learner will now know that no 
>picture will ever represent the Truth." This seems to indicate the 
>implicit insufficiency of the thought-centred mind as a real 
>instrument of inquiry and insight. It reminds me of the passage 
>in "The Voice of the Silence":
>
>"Having become indifferent to objects of perception, the pupil must 
>seek out the rajah of the senses, the Thought-Producer, he who 
>awakes illusion. 
>
>The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real. 
>Let the Disciple slay the Slayer."

All that is clear and correct. It's wise, however, to recognize the 
difference, and separate the Lower rational Mind (Kama-Manas), the Slayer, from the 
higher intuitive Mind (Buddhi-Manas), the Seeing... Since, HPB also pointed out 
that Manas is dual in nature. There is also a distinction to be made between 
the Scene, the Seeing, and the Seer, or the "object of perception, the 
perception itself, and the perceiver" -- which she also pointed out.

>This does not mean that intellectual effort, reflection, hard study 
>and pondering are necessarily useless. Perhaps real theosophical 
>study generates a mind that is truly free from the tyranny of 
>categories. Incidentally, the word 'category' seem to come from the 
>Greek "categorem", 'accusation'. Both Aristotle and Kant taught, 
>perhaps correctly, suggested that there is no logical thinking 
>without the use of categories. They are no doubt necessary, but a 
>mind that allows itself to be constantly bound by categories may be 
>only superimposing its own contents on reality. It may never know 
>that which is numinous, complete and free, i.e. Theosophy in its 
>essential nature.

Yes, when one is in touch with Buddhi-Manas, or the highest spiritual level 
of Mind, which requires quieting the modifications of the lower mind -- one has 
a "direct perception of ideas" -- that, in a sense, can be considered the 
highest nature of pure or sublime thought. Since, without such pure thought, 
there cannot be any comprehension of the ideation's themselves. This is not to 
say that one can't reach into higher levels of even more subline thought, such 
as that of the Dhyan Chohans, and ultimately experience their spiritual 
nature. Until that is done, however, one must be able to separate as well as 
consolidate all categories in the rational or lower mind-- by means of concentrated 
meditative thought (which is different from discursive rational thought) -- 
and, thus, not become bound by them. (This is just another way of looking at 
what HPB has taught us.)

Best wishes, and may we all reach our next terrace of enlightenment -- based 
on our own self devised and self determined efforts," (as HPB said).

Leon

>Pedro
>
>