Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00156)

July 9 2004

Dear Gerry:

Can we perhaps take "virtue" out of the subjective, and say: in a Universe
ruled by Laws for the education and emancipation of a host of immortal
beings (Monads), "virtue" is a voluntary obeying of those laws?  

Why should the intellectual perception of the crossing of a barrier (however
apparent, and however named) from UNITY to multiplicity (starting with
duality -- which is in reality as triad, since the all-pervasive UNITY is
not eliminated from the division we name: "duality") be a subject we cannot
consider and answer? 

Are those so recondite as to be inexplicable and secret?  

If our minds are enabled to conceive of them, then the powers of MIND
transcend any kind of division, and always tend to reunite to the ONE with
is always SOURCE, REALITY and GOAL. Is this is what meant by "BE-NESS?" 

To use the definitions of "I" and "Not I" to me, implies that there is an
EVER-PRESENT, call it a "Presence," that "sees" them both. This will ever
precede "being," it is present all through the developmental period, and
will still be there, when that ends in a general reabsorption and
resolution.  

"Time and space" are no barriers to IT, and we, while still in our embodied
limitations, are each endowed with a Mind (a tool) able to make these
perceptions. Buddhi then, would be a voluntary obedience to all laws and
therefore also be "all-knowingness." That, to me, equals to "compassion."  

It is, agreeably, that "channel" that inevitably leads all Intellectual
knowledge to ATMA the ONE and WHOLE. And by process of elimination, we
become able to see that WE ARE that ATMIC RAY, one, and indivisible from all
others. To me that resolves the paradox. With such a realization an such a
discipline we transform our whole "lower nature" into the corresponding
higher "virtues" -- will determination, attention, knowledge/wisdom and
finally, the ability to act as an agent for the all-supportive ONE LIFE. Is
this not also the distinction between the bodhisattva and the Buddha?

Again: Are those concepts so recondite as to be inexplicable and secret?  

I would say not. Their effects are continuously in and around us. They
support all life, at every level.  

There is not a single law in chemistry, physics, mechanics, mathematics,
art, -- anything anyone chooses to advance -- that cannot be shown to have
interconnected and interlocking universal and impersonal laws that support
and amplify its presence. The brotherhood of all life is both immediate and
diffuse. 

So the "subjective virtue" aspect is at best an attempt to avoid having to
agree we ought to be living lives where we voluntarily and sensitively obey
all those laws we perceive to be already in operation. To do this, we can
no longer be, or pretend to be -- "ignorant." We Know, but choose to
oppose. 

If we insist on being "individual," does this also imply we isolate
ourselves from others, or seek to subvert their independence to our
domination? If this is a "selfish impulse" then we violate the tenet of
"Brotherhood." 

Question then arises: How and Why (in us, at this time, and also, it is the
cause of our inner conflicts) does this emphasis on avoiding or breaking law
arise? Why is there this insistence on being "different," -- on being "our
(lower) selves." Are we so afraid of law that we are willing to become the
voluntary slaves of an indefinable "individualism," possibly leading to
martyrdom -- the annihilation of ones' physical self? Seems strangely
contradictory.

Is this the mysterious cause of all suffering and pain?  

Has this been called "divine discontent?" 

I have put some additional notes below.

Best wishes, 

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald 
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 6:46 AM
To: 
Subject: Theosophical Chelas and Path working

D	<< It occurs to me that in our world there is fundamentally a single
"School" of discipline that leads to "perfection." [We could say from
one point of view, that we are all students, and if we are virtuous,
then we are also "chelas" of the single Great Philosophy -- regardless
of how it is named ] That is, if you can agree that ideals tend to
converge to a point of unanimity. >>

G	It seems to me that the differences between occult schools is in at
least
two main areas, techniques and goals. 


<< DTB	I don't think they are automatic. They run together. It takes
wisdom (a knowledge of law in operation) to select the best way of action
(which to me, is virtue). >>

G	OK. I would only add that virtue is terribly subjective and because
of that Tends to be relative. Life is not black and white, but various
shades of
grey.


D	<< Its not something that is paraded or preached, but a way of
living. 

G	OK


D	<< I see "virtue" emanating from all the wise injunctions we secure
as
"traditions" that meld together into a single aim and practice. It is not
something to enforce (as we can't do that anyway) but we can hold our
desires, passions and yens in on a balanced position. Its when those go
overboard (excitement?) that trouble seems to arrive in tons. >>


G	It does seem that all of the world's religions are together in
teaching
love and compassion.


<< DTB Perhaps WISDOM is of two kinds: >>


G	It is essentially assimilated experience.


D	<< 1	Intellectual -- well reasoned out and adopted because it is
universal, impersonal, just and fair -- as perceived by the intellect
dispassionately,. and Intellectual knowledge.

<< 2	Intuitional -- where the Heart desire to help, provides wise actions
and compassion. There one might say the heart doesn't wit for reason to
assure, but propels actions to help as needed in the moment of greatest
need. On review some errors may be detected, but the urge is a spontaneity
which the deliberation of the first might result in unnecessary and later
troublesome delays.>>


G	Experiential knowledge.


D	<< These are just my ideas. >>


G	I agree that these are our two kinds of knowledge. But intellectual
knowledge dies when the brain dies, while experiential knowledge is carried
over from life to life via buddhi. 


<< DTB	AGREED. But really it is the faculty of the Highest that sees
through all the series of "eyes" to the "lowest." Reminds me of the old
verses: "The One Consciousness pierces up and down through all the states
and planes of Being and serves to uphold the memory -- whether complete or
incomplete -- of each state's experiences....>>


G	The way my own experiences work, I seem to have a "body" of sorts on
each plane complete with its own senses through which I can make
observations. I had thought that this idea came from CWL who does say this,
but later I found it in G de Purucker, so Blavatsky must mention it
somewhere. Anyway, this is how it seems to be for me, with the "higher"
bodies having no awareness as such of the "lower." For example, we are only
aware of our physical body through our physical senses. When dreaming, or in
meditation, we are not aware of it at all. The same seems true all the way
up the planes.


D	<< The One Consciousness of each person is the Witness or
Spectator... >>


G	There are several such witnesses, including atma-buddhi-manas,
atma-buddhi, and paramatman to name just three. The feeling of a witness
comes from the fact that we are always consciously aware 24-7 on all planes.
Thus whatever we are doing, there is a conscious awareness lurking in our
background, so to speak. This conscious presence is often projected outward
as a deity but it is really our own essential or inherent mind.


D	<< Our consciousness is ONE, and not many, nor different from other
consciousnesses. It is not waking consciousness or sleeping consciousness,
or any other but consciousness itself." [G N, 99-100] >>


G	This is Blavatsky's monadic consciousness-center, all of the other
"consciousnesses" being its manifested expressions on different planes. 


<< DTB	That's why I say THEOSOPHY draws all those together and shows how
they intermesh.>>


G	Agreed, but I can't see how such a mesh can possibly come about
without the doctrine of anatman.


D	<< Let me offer an example. I write to you, here, and what I say is
tinged with my comprehension and vocabulary (of thought and words). I seek
to express what I have learned and reasoned out from my sources. But
inevitably, the expressions I use may fall short of the best way of
expressing the originals. >>


G	OK


D	<< Supposing that later a student in search of information happens
on our exchange and proceeds to adopt one or the others' views -- or
concocts one of his own. There might then arise a new "School" with its
traditions,
etc... and so on. >>


G	Agreed. In fact, it is said that Asanga founded the Mind Only school
because he thought that the Middle Way school was too nihilistic.



D	<< I think if we stick as far as possible to the Basics and
Originals ( and try to eliminate the biases of translators, please, we
might succeed in 
securing a better grasp of what was originally intended. )>>


G	Hopefully I am doing this. At least I am trying.


<< DTB	The Self (Monad) and its "Skandhas" -- yes I think I see the
difference. But as I read it, THEOSOPHY does away with that by positing
the Monad is a "skandha" that has advanced through aeons of experience. 
[S D I 174-5 footnote, 619, 632-6] >>


G	Well, I hope not. Such a linear evolution has two main faults:

(1) we are faced with an origin problem (even science cannot get over this
inherent problem) and 

(2) it posits a "monad" that can cross from duality into
nonduality and presummably vice versa, which gets us into the "causeless
cause" problem. And if we want to define the "Monad" as an indivisible
unit, which I think it is, then we cannot have it being a subjective Self
or an objective Not-Self because such compounds cannot exist there. And it
is just this point that makes me give the edge to the Middle Way school
which may seem to be nihilistic but is not because it posits a nondual
Monad which it calls the Dharmakaya.



D	<<The concept offered is that every Monad is an immortal part of the
INFINITE ALL. It passes through over a very long period of time, all the
stages of evolutionary advancement that are offered in the Universe. >>


G	This is one area where we simply differ in our interpretations. I
don't
believe that Blavatsky teaches that the nondual Monad evolves at all. I see
the nondual Monad as being inherently divine, having an inherent existence
that never changes because it is beyond time and space. She clearly tells
us that it sends forth its "ray" which in turn does all the evolving. And
here is just one more origin problem, in that technically "How can
something that never changes, that is beyond time, send forth a ray?"
Logically it cannot "do" anything. But all attempts to intellectually
explain origins end in such logic problems. 

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

DTB	I think this is what HPB says in S D I pp 174-5 footnotes.

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


D	<< The "skandhas" are the latest arrivals (so to say) among the ever
entering "monads." They may be designated, when compared to Man ( a Monad
of developing Mind) 'monads of lesser experience.' >>


G	The skandhas are our own karmic predispositions for a body and mind.
They are aggregates or compounds, not monads. Blavatsky's intention, I
think, is to have the monadic ray self-expressing in time and space, the
skandhas being such a self-expression. In fact, it is just this monadic ray,
this
sense of unity, that causes us to posit a self onto the skandhas as if such
a thing actually existed.

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

DTB	Aggregates or compounds of What? Possibly many "Monads" gathered
into "shapes" we construct by desire and launch into the stream of
associated Karma. 

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


D	<< So Mankind, and the monads of lesser experience (skandhas or
'aggregates') are the building blocks used in the formation of his various
sheaths, principles or 'bodies.' It is a continuity, not a disparity. The
'monads
of lesser experience' will eventually become independent thinkers and "Men"
of a future Manvantara. A very long view of things is offered.>>


G	OK, all of which is an intellectual modeling of conditional reality.


<< DTB	I would say that the ultimate cause ( Causeless Cause ?) is about
as indefinable as "REALITY" is to us. Yet, because we are able to
contemplate intellectually the possibility of these intangibles, there is
somewhere in our CONSCIOUSNESS a sense of the REALITY -- or we would not
even be able to think of or about them even, as potentials. >>


G	According to the rules of the game of life, we can only think about
or
conceptualize about what we have directly experienced. We can experience
both nonduality and duality, and so we try to intellectually combine these
two experiences in a casual relationship. But no such causal relationship
can possibly exist. Blavatsky was well aware of this, and so she came up
with "causeless cause" which warns against causality while throwing a bone
to the intellect.

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

DTB	To me. To be able to do that, shows me that there is a range of
wisdom/knowledge that exceeds our present intellectual capacities and
boundaries and, yet, leaves its traces -- by a logic (under 'the rules of
the game.) that has to be there. The name or label does not matter. The
"rules," or LAWS do. Though un-nameable, they are.

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


D	<< As to the law of Karma -- logically (to me) it appears as
infinite and as consequent as the ABSOLUTE ITSELF. Perhaps one might
hazard the idea that on the plane of differentiation (rupa lokas) it is
KARMA itself as an active and positive vivifier of the return of all
impressions to their rightful
destinations. >>


G	I don't see the law of karma as "infinite" in that it is confined to
the
Maya of space and time and then only functions when we have an apparent
existence of "entities." However, the idea that we exist as a person who
has karma is pure mayavic illusion. We are karma.

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

DTB	Even so, but why should it be assumed that the Karma of our limited
universe and present embodied experience is the only kind of Karma?

Consider what kind of force brings Universes into, and takes them out of,
manifestation? To make it simple, (to me) I would call it KARMA. And that
does not escape the reign of BE-NESS -- THE ALL. As I look at it, on that
grandiose scale, it is the "rajasic" aspect of the TRIGUNA. The form-side
being "tamasic," and the Wisdom side being "Sattva."  

Borrowing from the BHAGAVAD GITA, and The VOICE OF THE SILENCE, one might
say that DHARMAKAYA implies the eternal stability of WISDOM COMPLETE,
Sambhogakaya is pure Sattva (one might say it is "the inane beatitude of
pure spirit" and therefore removes the Buddha from further contact with the
cycle of samsara); finally the Nirmanakaya is the one who having obtained
all those "THREE PERFECTIONS" rejects them out of compassion for the
struggling masses of Monads and remains in the glorious "body" he has woven
for himself -- to watch over and ever protect mankind in its struggles
towards the Truth.

I wonder if you might agree to that?
 
Dal
========================================

Jerry S.



---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-56348C@list.vnet.net