Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00212)

Mauri,
Thanks for your reply and comments. To your question "did you meet the 
"boy"" the answer is no. I did not go to So. America on either of the two trips. 
On the first trip it was only Jim Frazier and Brian Scott that went there. We 
saw them off at the LA Int. Airport and met them there when they returned, 
having brunch at the airport Cafe'. Jim told me about the"Boy" and how he met him 
in detail (at that time Jim and I shared an apartment in Hollywood so I hada 
little more access than others. He was quite shaken by the unexpected 
appearance of the "boy" it was in the wee hours of the morning that he had gone out 
side to use the bathroom facilities in the very dim darkness without much light 
where they stayed. Yes after the transformation was completed he never saw or 
had contact with the "boy" again. It is all in the Book. 
Well, as I previously said and posted I edited 1,183 pages of the first 
ten chapters in the mid-1980's which was later greatly reduced from the very 
replete content Jim wanted to include, it is very hard to make decisions onwhich 
content to remove due to the sheer volume of events of the time-line, jim and 
i had disagreements on some of the issues which ultimately resolved into the 
final published form later. but the essential primary event occurances of the 
highest importance remained there to communicate the most essential 
happenings. Jim has aspiration to produce later volumes which then can include contents 
that were not included in the first volume. As to "What really happened" this 
is the paradox itself and a conundrum that I continually was faced with, it 
was one reason I searched outsode the box of UFO's and looked at Blavatsky and 
other sources trying to find analogs and explanations for such events and 
paranormal manisfestations in the subtle sense of our experience. But Jim has 
authenticated the actual events most closely as he turned down many offers for two 
decades on the sole reason that he would not allow license to freely 
fictionalize the actual events and he was determined to see that what actually happened 
as recorded remained authentic and true. 

>>It's as if the 
"phenomena," or whatever you want to 
call it, is unable to connect with the 
"common man," leaving people with their 
mouths open and more or less ready to 
accept some "more mainstream" 
interpretation about "what really 
happened,"<<

Yes, why would we expect it to be different than that in terms of the 
mainstream? People exist in the "conditioned state" a la Patanjali, it is just that 
state that demarcates and isolated them from penetration of the subtle, as a 
result they are forced to create rationales to accommodate the state and 
condition of their common consciousness which is the veil of gnosis. even if the 
"phenomena" does not appear to penetrate the individuals, the degree in each is 
defferentiated according to their internal compositions and rediness of karma I 
think, the inclinations are entirely variable and the outward responces also. 
it would be so easy if there was only one explanation for everything but 
karma and reality are not built to display that homogeneity although there is a 
historical attempt to impress that idea in various manners, "god did it" and 
"The Devil did it" are examples. 

I like your very original term "Anomolollies," makes me laugh at the truth 
of the term, Brian used the expression "cheap thrills and circus tricks."  
Gerald of course has a cultured view based on the "Void" Doctrine which I also 
agree with. It is said mind can touch nothing and there is nothing to touchas 
there is nothing but the Void which is Mind Itself. Two of the graphic drawing 
pages have diagrams that relate to Mind and consciousness and projection, I 
think Jim included them in his Book.

The Word "expresses", existance is expression arising and diminishing, 
appearing and disappearing, what "views" via several modes the arisings and 
disappearances is Mind which itself is an agency of expedient means, what expresses 
ultimately is the ONE. Karma is the expression context derived of the 
storehouse consciousness alaya vijanana, the Mind itself in Natural Original State is 
the void and has no attachment of what arises and disappears.




Khotanese Book of Zambasta
Chapter 8 
(12) samñi jsa assei‘nä ssiyä hätänai samu
ttäna ju ne daiyä ruva väñanä karä

Blue, white, red is due merely to consciousness.
Therefore, the practical consciousness does not really see forms 
(Khotanese ruva < Sanskrit rupa, see above, XI.4) 

Page 5  

5 
(13) däyakä nästä kyä va ju dai tcei‘mäna karä 
ttussei uysanye jsa rraysa nästä ju varä

A seer does not really exist who can really see with his eyes. 
He is void, empty of self. He does not exist there at all.

(14) ko va sä aya kye va ruva tcei‘mäna ndai 
atma rro daiyä vä-no pracyanu hära


“If there were one who could see forms with his eye, 

His very self (atma<Sansrit, see above, II.3) would see things without
causes (pracy-anu Gen./-Dat.Pl, Emmerick, Saka gram. St., p. 299, § 71)” 



(15) ku-m jsa ju nästä väno pracyanu härä 
dyakä ni byaude ttäna ttussei tcei‘mä samu


Since therefore a thing does not exist without a cause, there is no seer. 
Therefore the eye is merely empty.

(16) prracyau tcei‘mä ttä rro hamata pracya ssai
ttatvatu trama kho yä huña daiyä hära 

The eye is due to a cause (prracy-au, Instrument.). Even these causes 
(pracya) themselves also are really such things as one sees in a dream.
 
(17) cu-m jsa dasau päskala tvo tcei‘mä samu härstai
nistä ne va väna ttanu karä


Since therefore there are ten parts of which the eye alone consists, 
It does not really exist, not at any rate apart from these.
 
(18) ko va ttyau aya dasau viro samu
nästä dassänu bhavänu hamtsatatä hama

If through these it should exist, there would merely be ten things. 
There is no equal union of ten substances.

Page 6  

6 
(19) ttäna ju ne ttyau tcei‘mä ne va handarä ttyau 
tcei‘mä ne byode hamatä här ha yä vätä 


Therefore the eye is not due to them nor is another due to them. 
The eye itself does not exist. A thing has come into being for it.

(20) ruva ne indä ttäna cu ne ju byaude hä 
rä ce va ju upata o jänga aya karä

Forms do not exist, because a thing does not exist of which there would 
really be origination or cessation.
 
(21) prracya hvañindä se sä ttaru panate
ksanänai uvasa ttuvarä nästä hamatä


Of the causes they teach: ‘This has made that arise. 

There is an opportunity for it in a moment. Moreover, it does not itself 
exist.



(22) ahämätä stanä cu sä hamatä pracai hva- 
tä hämä hämäte stanä hämätä iyä asamä 

Since the cause (pracai) is itself said to be unoriginated, the originated,
being originated, would be unlike (it). 

(23) näruddha stanä hära hämemate jsa asama 
ttäna ju upata prracyau jsa nistä karä

Suppressed things are unlike (it ) because of arising.
Therefore, there is no origination at all due to causes.
 
(24) ahämäte stani häru upeviyä häru 
aysata mata ttye pura viro pharu 

If, being originated, a thing should produce a thing, an unborn mother- of
her there would be many sons.

Page 7  

7 
(25) näruddha stanä häru upeviyä häru 
mudye rro merä ssei pura ysairo pharo
 
If, being suppressed, a thing should produce a thing,
many sons would be born even from a dead mother.

(26) hälysdi ne byaude ksana-masai nästä ksanä 
hamtsa hämande vänau pracyanu hära

There is no present even the length of a moment. There is no moment. 
Things would arise together without causes. 

(27) ttäna ju upata härstayä nistä häri
kvi ne upata nai ju va jinga karä

Therefore, there is really no origination of a thing.
Since it has no origination, it has no cessation at all.

(28) trama kho hunä o ttämärä ruva bissä 
ttatvatu nistä vänau aysmuna samu

All forms are such as a dream or partial blindness.
Nothing really exists except by thoughts alone.
 
(29) aysmui väñanä ruva chaya samu
drravyäna härä nästä samu kho huña härä

Forms are really (no more) merely the shadow of thought, of the practical 
consciousness.
No thingxist obje ctively. A thing exists only as in a dream.
 
Page 8  

8 
(30) ttatvatu bässä ruva hävi aysmu samä
ssei rro sä hade samu nama-matr hvatä
 

In reality all forms are merely one’s own thought. 

Yet even this too is itself a mere name.



(31) nästä ju härä hiskya ne pastamata karä
drravyäna härä ttatvatu härstayä ttussa

There is no arrival of a thing at all, no setting out.
Objectively, things are actually in reality empty.

(32) ttramu kho pharu priya tcalco uce hära
kyai dau ysu biysma ksustu daiyä samu

Things are such as many ghosts (dead persons, priya =Sanskrit preta-) on
the edge of water. 
One sees it merely as fire, as pus, as urine, as serum.

(33) ne ju vara dai ksustä biysma byode karä 
aysmui vivagä ttandä dätte samu

No fire, serum, urine really exists there. Such only does it appear as the 
coming to maturation (Khotanese vivagä<Sanskrit vipaka) of the mind.

(34) ttramu vinau arthä sarva-dharma bässä 
ttatvatu härä nästä citta-matra samu

So all the dharma-s (elements, see above and Th.Shcherbatsky. The Central 
Concept of Buddhism and the meaning of the word “dharma’. Calcutta,
1956 (reprint of the London ed. of 1923) are without meaning (arthä, see 
above).

In reality a thing does not exist. They are merely thoughts. 

(35) gguvyo‘ bajassa tvi padi nistä.
gguvo‘ kye jsa ju pyusda o hämatä pyusda gguvä‘


Sounds are due to the ears. In this way, there does not exist in the ear that 
by which one would hear nor does the ear hear of itself.

Page 9  

9 
(36) haysge bussañi viri ysuyañi virä bisa
varju nä byode ce va ju ttäte butta hära

(So) the nostrils with regards to smells, the tongue with regard to tastes. 
There does not exist there that which would perceive these things.

(37)sparsä ttarandarna vänau aysmui jadä 
aysmu härstayä ne skutu yindä häru 

Touch is due to the body. Without thought it is foolish.
The mind cannot really touch the thing.

XX.2.B Tocharian A pratyay , a borrowing from Sanskrit
XX . 2.C. 
Tocharian A masalyamtsune “(secondary) cause; conditon” (enters into a 

long description of Sanskrit pratyaya together with Toch.A pratyay) 
Tocharian A masalyamtsune is formed with an abstract suffix –ts-une(cf.
above on l-une) from masalyam “causing, shaping, giving an occasion(?)” 

which seems to be related to the –l- form of the verbal root seen in the verb
mäsk-«to be», mäsk-al ‘he should be’ (see examples of sentences with this 

form: Thomas. W. Die Tocharische verbaladjektive auf –l. Berlin, 1952, SS.
18-19; 54), Tocharian B maskele (ib,. S. 55) mäskelye (ib., S.27). As the 
suffixes -s- and –sk- are connected (as in Latin pa-s-tor, pas-tum:pa-sc-o), 
it is possible that a form *ma/e-s-al had existed in the prehistory of
Tocharian from which masal-ya (as mä-sk-el-ye) cited above might have 
Page 10 

10 
been derived. It seems that an interesting hint at a prehistorical stage of 
the 
development of Tocharian A Buddhist terminology might be seen here.
XX.3.
Sanskrit phala- “effect, result, consequence; fruit; detemined by acause or 

a condition

Pali phalaka- 
Tocharian A and B (borrowing from A) oko “fruit, result of influence” 

Etymology:Tocharian A oko “fruit” is derived from the verbal stem ok- “to

grow” (Tocharian B auk- “to grow”< Indo-European *aug-: Latin aug-ere; 
Tocharian A changes *au>o, in Tocharian B the ancient diphtong au has
been preserved); the borrowing from Tocharian A shows that it was an 
initial sacred language of Buddhism for all the Tocharians 
Sanskrit hetu-phala =Sogdian ”nß‘nt (”t) ptwry 
MacKenzie, D.N. Buddh. Sogd. Texts,pp.80, 170; The ‘Sutra of Causesand
Effects of actions in Sogdian.London, 1970 


As usual I am too wordy, I apoligize,

John







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]