Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00234)

Sorry to butt in... But,
In a message dated 03/12/05 6:58:44 PM, samblo@cs.com writes:

(snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) . . . (snip) . . .  
(see below)
>
>As usual I am too wordy, I apologize,

Yeah... In fewer words, I think the Three Stooges could make all that very 
clear.  

If they threw a few Pi's in the face of the guy who translated all that 
symbolic language (probably mistranslated from an even more symbolic language:) -- 
his surprise over the smell and taste of that yummy cream puff, and the 
realization of all the causes and effects that got it up his nose and in his mouth 
and ears (not to mention the sound of the splatt against his closed eyes) -- 
would have us natives (currently at sea) rolling in the aisles... ROFLOL (NYUK! 
NYUK! as Curly would say)

To get serious... I (on the authority of Moe) think all the empty heads who 
take literally, and believe such simplistic my/schtical nonsense as gospel 
truth, are all wet. ~/;–}>

Maybe it would be a good idea for all of them to jump in the Ocean of 
Theosophy and study the SD in depth -- to find out what "emptiness," "karma" and 
"Maya" really means from a true esoteric (to them) theosophical point of view.  

Leon...
(a.k.a. Lenny)

P.S. It doesn't make me wonder at all why those ancient (and modern) gurus 
garbled up the metaphysical teachings so cleverly (or so blindly:) -- probably, 
so as to hang on to their ignorant followers (who couldn't understand its 
complexity in simplicity anyway, if it was told to them straight out in as many 
words as it took in the SD. 








--------original message----------

(Just for fun)



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 
had a 

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 on 
which 

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 touch 
as 

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