Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00069)

July 4 2004

Dear Gerry:

Thanks

Some more notes below, please.

Dallas
 
=======================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald 
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 12:50 AM
To: 
Subject: RE: UNIVERSAL THEOSOPHY and "exoteric/esoteric"



DTB	<< In the S D ( I p. 15) it says:
"Parabrahm (the One Reality, the Absolute) is the field of Absolute
Consciousness, i.e., that Essence which is out of all relation to
conditioned existence, and of which conscious existence is a conditioned
symbol. >>

G	Here she is identifying Parabrahm with nonduality.


DTB	<< But once that we pass in thought from this (to us) Absolute
Negation,
duality supervenes in the contrast of Spirit (or consciousness) and Matter,
Subject and Object. >>

G	Here she gives us the very first duality or primal duality: subject
and
object, which is to say I and Not-I.


DTB	<< Spirit (or Consciousness) and Matter are, however, to be
regarded, not as
independent realities, but as the two facets or aspects of the Absolute
(Parabrahm), which constitute the basis of conditioned Being whether
subjective or objective." S D I 15 >>

G	Here she identifies I with Not-I, the two being aspects of the same
thing.
This illusion of two aspects, of an I separate from its Not-I, is Maya. 


DTB	<< I am sure it is this endless set of rounds that is to be overcome
and
avoided as a cause for the future? Or am I wrong? >>

G	The "cause for the future" is karma, and its end is Liberation.

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

DTB	HERE YOU LOOSE ME. Let me say:

May I ask? Because it is still unclear to me: --
KARMA -- Does this not imply the quality of our emotion when making
choices?

LIBERATION -- Of what, from What ? I think these ought to be defined
for better understanding.
Example: What is it that is bound down? What is it that is to be
"liberated?"

What is the force that binds and what is the force that will liberate?
Some definitions and thought along those lines will help me understand.

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


DTB	<< If it is true that if we can't pass back through the "Ring
Pass-Not"
(that marks the separation between the Para and the Apara Vidyas and states)
back into the ABSOLUTENESS, we are confined to this side of the Mayavic
living. >>

G	Who is this "we" that cannot pass back? Our core is the nondual
Monad which
is already in Beness. That which moves in Space or "passes" are mayavic
manifestations. It is atma-buddhi that cannot pass back through. So, we
have to transcend atma-buddhi.

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

DTB	How ? If you say that we are able to do this. then w (or some
aspect of OURSELVES) is already in that state, and look down on
ATMA-BUDDHI, so to say. Then why all this commotion and vast exercise of
the round of rebirth (samsara) ? There has to be some good reason for it?
Who or what benefits?

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


DTB	<< Yet if we can conceive of those, we are in fact verifying the
existence
of a "thread-thought capacity" (Antaskarana ?) that is never severed between
the
ever-immutable and the continually changing - our embodied condition. >>

G	Conceptualizations are just that - concepts. They are products of
manas,
and are not realities.

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

DTB	Where does "Manas" get those ideas? Are they pre-existent? Are
they fancies?

++++++++==============================


<<> DTB	That does not sound entirely logical to me. I think as we ascend
higher into the spiritual cycle the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS (is this not the
Antaskarana ?) always remains as an assurance of our immortality and
continuity. Where else can we secure this sense of "being" ?

G	The "one consciousness" is conditional, not inherent, and so is
impermanent. When the I merges with the Not-I neither one remains else the
Monad would be divisible.

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

DTB	This seems an impasse -- Is not the Monad also part of the ONENESS
-- the INFINITE the Not-I ?

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


<< DTB	Can we use The VOICE OF THE SILENCE as a basis for response? " >>

Sure


<<I see implied here that benevolent and compassionate work is shown
as a key to achieve the "goal." >>

What goal? Compassion is key to Liberation and it is key to enlightenment.


<< It is motive that encompasses the "Whole." And therefore would embody
the powers and potentials of that "WHOLE" without any self-interest, or 
selfish desire of any kind. -- Make of ones' self an impersonal force for

"good." I have seen it expressed that way.>


G	The self needs to be put aside because it doesn't exist.

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

DTB	This seems paradoxical. Unclear If it exists whoever fragmentarily
in time or space, then it has an essential use? As I said there has to be
some logic in this.

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


<< "Strive with thy thoughts unclean before they overpower thee. Use them as
they will thee, for if thou sparest them and they take root and grow, know
well, these thoughts will overpower and kill thee. Beware, Disciple, suffer
not, e'en though it be their shadow, to approach. For it will grow,
increase in size and power, and then this thing of darkness will absorb thy
being
before thou hast well realized the black foul monster's presence.>>


G	The value of good thoughts.


<< Before the "mystic Power" (1) can make of thee a God, Lanoo, thou must
have gained the faculty to slay they lunar form at will.>>


G	The Adept has full control over his/her subtle body.


<< The Self of Matter and the SELF of Spirit can never meet. One of the
twain must disappear; there is no place for both.>>



G	We either observe spirit or we observe matter but never both
together. When
merged together, they are no longer spirit and matter per se any more.
Tibetan Buddhism teaches that there are two selves: the self of persons and
the self of objects. Here the text is talking about the second type.


<< Ere thy Soul's mind can understand, the bud of personality must be
crushed out, the worm of sense destroyed past resurrection. [ Voice p. 13 ]
>>

G	Destroy the belief in a personal self.

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

DTB	Why? How ?

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


<< "When thou hast passed into the seventh, O happy one, thou shalt
perceive no
more the sacred three, (1) for thou shalt have become that three thyself.
Thyself and mind, like twins upon a line, the star which is thy goal, burns
overhead. (2) The three that dwell in glory and in bliss ineffable, now in
the world of Maya have lost their names. They have become one star, the
fire that burns but scorches not, that fire which is the Upadhi (3) of the
Flame." [ Voice 20-1 ]


G	The one in three is the I-Not-I Monad.   


[ DTB OK ]


<< "Sow kindly acts and thou shalt reap their fruition. Inaction in a deed
of mercy becomes an action in a deadly sin. Thus saith the Sage.>>

Karma


<< Shalt thou abstain from action? Not so shall gain thy soul her freedom.
To
reach Nirvana one must reach Self-Knowledge, and Self-Knowledge is of
loving deeds the child. >>



G.	As long as we believe in a personal self, it doesn't matter if we
act or
not.


<< Dallas, the only thing that we, as an I, can "experience and explore" is
our own Not-I. Only the Not-I has existence for an I, and that reality is
conditional not inherent.


DTB	I hear you but do not understand. >>



G	When the mundial Monad breaks up (it doesn't really, but it seems to
relative to manas) into a subject and object, that subject can only know
that object and none other. I can know my world, and you can know your
world and so on. Our words merge at some points and do not merge at others
points. In any case, the world or object that the subject observes or knows
is conditional reality, not inherent reality. Only the nondual Monad is
inherently real.

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

DTB	If there are "worlds" in common, then sharing would seem logical and
the exchange of "skandhas / samskaras" would be probable -- Justas the atoms
and molecules of science are continually being exchanged ?

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


<< If you say, and I understand you, the "NOT IT" is everything in the
UNIVERSE >>

G	Blavatsky says there is a primal subject and an object (see your own
quote above). I simply call the subject I and the object Not-I. The I is
whatever you identify as your self and the Not-I is everything else. Both
are
mayavic illusions because they are not really separated.

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

DTB	I agree to this, so it is really (or am I wrong ?) a false position
to take that there is duality and separation? But then it gets back (for
me) t the prime question? "Why all this commotion ?" "Why are we
involved? Why should we be obliged to seek for "Liberation?" 

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

<< DTB	Here is where I get 'lost." I ask myself: Why? Why secure such
wisdom if it is not of intrinsic value, nor cannot be used? And if it is
to be used, then shall we call it the compassion of a wise teacher who seeks
to get the attention and inspire the self-effort that all Minds need, to
themselves seek, observe, learn and practice? >>

Why life? Why manifestation? There is no answer to this question because it
is based on false assumptions.

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

DTB	So how to resolve?

Best wishes,

Dal


G	Got to go. Later...

Jerry S.