Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00223)

July 17 2004

Dear Gerry:

Esotericism or exotericism -- what difference does it make? Where do we
find knowledge, truth and explanations?

Now this is quite long and probably repetitive --	However, would you
consider?


May I ask? [ Based on what you wrote. ] I am bristling with questions like
a porcupine I think. ]


What is the nature of that "Path" which leads to "escape" from the
'suffering of mortality?"

Is mortality only "suffering?" Do you think the great Buddha was asking us
to find the cause of suffering so as to make of "embodiment in mortality" a
haven-like period?  

Are you of the opinion that he thought of life on our "Earth" is only
hellish? 

Look at the illustrative story of Sujata who lived a life of dedicated duty
within the framework of her knowledge, piety and duty. Also, the Buddha
never complained of his life and work. Again, the narrative of Kisagotami,
who lost her child to the love bite of the serpent, exhibits only the
naiveté of innocence, ignorance and wonder, not of anger and sorrow . How
wonderfully gentle yet educative is the way in which the Great One treated
her.

Why, and how did "we" get involved and enmeshed in 'mortality?'  

Should we be greatly concerned in that? And if so, how much? 

What does 'mortality' consist of?  

Why should it cause in itself any 'suffering' at all?   

[ You say Karma does it as an effect. If I accept that, then I have to
discover who makes the Karma. -- I am returning to an earlier answer of
yours. ]

If "I" do, then, under what terms of quality is that Karma caused? 

What is the nature of the "I" in me, that would deliberately set up causes
for "bad" karma?  

Is "good" karma a possibility? If so, then how is that to be "set up?"

How do we know the difference? Are we made "ignorant," or do we become
ignorant?

And for what objective should we be "good?" If you should say "to free
ourselves of sorrow," or to attain "liberation," or "Nirvana," Then I ask
what is there in the nature of good reason for this whole exercise of
involution / evolution? [As described in the SECRET DOCTRINE .]

To me, it implies that a free "immortal" [my Inner SELF} deliberately has
re-involved itself in matter and the 'sufferings of matter'-- not for its
own sake, as it already rose out of such a situation. Why return to it? Is
this compassion? Is it doing this to serve those who are still enmeshed in
ignorance of their situation?

-----------------------------------

I wonder why it ("embodiment" causing sorrow ) is set up as a kind of
barrier or environment?

[ Is it a requirement of Nature, or, of the Universe? Or is it man-made,
and determined by man's choices? If the latter, then there are at least a
pair of opportunities to choose from. The alternative to law (as a
brotherhood of immortals), seems to me, to be a chaos (of selfishness,
isolation, tyranny over others, and excesses of inordinate, private
pleasures.) ]

Is anything benefited by this enmeshment? Why does the "Higher" have
anything to do with the "Lower?" [ Yet we are told in the "Voice" (Frag.
III, pp 77-79) that taking Nirvana implies a retirement from the world of
Suffering and is considered a kind of 'Spiritual Selfishness.' -- that of
the 'Pratyekha Buddha.']

Is it a chance (?) encounter, or is there something that propels and demands
this condition?

If not a "chance" then is this by chance an old Karmic bond that is
reasserting itself? [ as an example see S D II 78-79, 94-5, 110-111,
167 - on "returning Nirvanees." ]

Are we to take it for granted that the "We" in us is not involved in
'mortality?" If so, then where is it? What is it constituted of?

If WE 'escape" from this, then what happens to that "matter (?)" which I
presume makes a 'form' of "mortality" possible?

Permit me to ask, as I am puzzled by the statements made -- which I have
also encountered in the doctrines. 

I am seeking for an explanation that is rational and logical. [ So I give
you the references I consider apposite. ] I am sure there is one. 

Best wishes and many thanks for your illuminating answers to me earlier
inquiries.

Dallas

-------------------------

PS

Earlier you wrote:

------------------------

<< Dallas (to Gerald)<<On what basis is the 
"Real Me: the (my) inner "Observer" and 
"Director," "Chooser," etc... not 
"real?" And even if, agreeably to you 
(and the doctrines), it is a Maya, on 
every plane of differentiation and 
manifestation, except the "imputed" 
utterly transcendent, then, where does 
that MAYA originate? And Why ? >> ....

Dallas's question "Where does Maya originate?" assumes that Maya is real
and that it has a valid inherent existence. Given such an assumption it is
only logical to start looking for origins, But there are none. Science has
tried its hand at the origin of our physical universe going all the way
back to an illogical Big Bang which poses more questions than it answers.
Going back to some origin always results in the failure of logic and reason
and the posing of yet more questions (the chicken or egg? for example). 

Our "inner Observer" is the I and what it observes is the Not-I. This is a
general statement of our condition during a manvantara, and it holds on all
planes and for all kingdoms throughout every dualistic manvantara such as
the one we currently find ourselves in. The question "How did this
bifurcation or dualistic split into I and Not-I occur?" is based on the
assumption that such a dualistic split actually exists. This split or
bifurcation is Maya, and to look for a logical origin of Maya will lead
nowhere because it has no origin point. Maya, like everything else, came
about from various causes and conditions but what those causes and
conditions were is beyond me.

The question of Why? is also based on the false assumption of Maya having a
reality that it doesn't have. Why? goes straight to the question of the
meaning of life. If we assume that life is real and we are an "I" that
lives in an external world, which is how life appears to our physical
senses, then it is only logical to ask such a question. But there is no
logical answer, nor can there be. The notion that we are evolving through
multiple experiences implies that an origin must exist somewhere in the
past and that an evolutionary goal is to be reached somewhere in the future
as if time is actually divided up in such a way and as if an "I" existed
and that this "I" was in need of an evolution. 

How questions are posed and how they are answered depends on initial
assumptions. These assumptions or propositions cannot be "proved" and have
to be taken on faith, even when our direct experience suggests their
validity or nonvalidity. The experience of a materialist suggests that
matter exsits and that spirit does not. The experience of a yogi suggests
that both matter and spirit exist as two aspects of the same substance. The
experience of an Adept suggests that matter and spirit are both mayavic
illusion and that neither has inherent or intrinsic reality. Who is right?
How can any of these perspectives be "proved?" They cannot be, and we are
reduced to having faith. Such is the condition of all human beings and if
there is a way out of this box, I haven't found it yet.

Jerry S.

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@e...] 
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:00 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: "Plea for Esotericism"

<< I suspect that the "more specific" sense 
in which "escape" and "excused" and 
"forgiven" might be interpreted re 
"karma" and the "esoteric tradition" 
might be relevant here. >>

G	According to the third Noble Truth of Buddhism, there is indeed an
"escape"
from the suffering of mortality. 

According the fourth Noble Truth, the karmic cause for such an "escape"
being an effect, is a Path. As far as "forgiveness" is concerned, we have to
forgive ourself.


G	Apparently, 

according to what I've read in "The 
Gnostic Gospels," there is an ongoing 
struggle between the literal, exoteric, 
orthodox interpretations on the one 
hand, and the esoteric, "more gnostic" 
interpretations on the other hand. >>

Theosophy, like Gnosticism, does have these two camps or schools.


<< There doesn't seem to be any easy 
solution for a better understanding 
between those two groups. Not that 
there isn't some overlap.>>

G	There is some overlap, yes, but not enough. The two sides see each
other
very sceptically. Those who follow Exoteric Theosophy depend on the
"original" writings, together with later writings that they have faith in,
and on their own intellect to comprehend them. Those who follow Esoteric
Theosophy depend on their meditative experiences and on interpretations of 
all available Theosophical literature. Those who follow Exoteric Theosophy
see the other group as wild misguided radicals who therefore threaten the
Theosophical Movement. Those who follow Esoteric Theosophy see the other
group as sadly stuck in manas and ingrossed in their own intellectual
gymnastics who therefore threaten the Theosophical Movement.

Jerry S.

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

<< I'm wondering what kind of "we" might
"transcend atma-buddhi"... When I
speculate about that topic, I tend to
want to put some sort of quotes on that
kind of "we," "among other things.">>

G	Throughout all 7 cosmic planes, we have an I and a Not-I that appear
to be
separate and relatively independent but are really in union. Atma-buddhi is
one I. Mauri is an I. And paramatman is also an I, and it is paramatman
that transcends atma-buddhi. But all of these I's are dualistic and mayavic.


<< I'm guessing that there might be a "Broader 
perspective, in a sense" that might be 
seen to "transcend atma-buddhi," rather 
than the "we" we might generally think 
we're familiar with. >>

G	OK, we are not generally familiar with paramatman.


G: <<Compassion is key to Liberation and
it is key to enlightenment.>>

<< "In a sense" tends to come to mind ...
Not that those quotes "explain"
("exoterize") anything much, I suspect,
but/"but"...>>

I wonder in what sense compassion is not key?


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

<< "In a sense, if ..." ... >>

Yeah, how does one "put aside" something that doesn't exist?


<< "I seem to prefer" a kind of
transcendence of "good/bad" "by way of 
just-being," basically, or "basically" 
... ^:-/ ... Although, "in exoteric 
terms," I might be inclined to model, 
"worldview" or "Theosophize" in terms 
that might have some references to 
"good/bad," maybe, in some sense--- 
depending on whatever "r/Relevance" I 
might "tend to see" in whichever 
"good/bad," in whatever sense." >>

G	Good and bad are two sides of a duality and both need to be
transcended.
The "problem of evil" is one of the first tasks that we face when we begin
to tread a Path. This whole good and evil business has to be confronted and
understood for what it is.


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

<< How can one have "full control" over 
anything within karmic life ... unless 
the "control" is worked into or defined 
into the "karma/maya"... in which case 
wouldn't such "control" be rather 
mayavic, among other things ... Not that 
there might not be "mutually agreeable" 
forms of karma or worldviews that, 
alternatively, might be in some "more 
specific" sense defined as "controls," 
for whatever reason ...>>

G	Full control means the ability to make conscious choices that are
not
influenced by past karma. 

In a sense, the mayavirupa is the result of good karma. But in another
sense it is the result of freedom from karma. 


G: <<Destroy the belief in a personal self.>>

<< But keep the same name so the revenoors 
can still come after you ...>>

Exactly.


G: <<Karma>>

<< With no quotes ... or maybe you had in 
mind some sort of "invisible quotes," 
maybe ... Not that the quotes make all 
that much difference, I suspect, 
generally speaking, but/"but"...
Speculatively,
Mauri >>

I decided to go quoteless, without a quote. Its kind of like flying without
a net. Dangerously exciting.

Jerry S.

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