Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00554)

Apl 12 2005

RE: Self and Rebirth -- VOICE OF THE SILENCE P. 3,


Dear Friend Z and others:


Here is another view-point:


HPB in the SECRET DOCTRINE says:  

"It is the spiritual evolution of the inner, immortal man that forms the
fundamental tenet in the Occult Sciences." S D I 643

In the first pages of the "Voice" -- Fragment I (pp. 1-3) the Teacher
speaks and the disciple listens.

The Teacher speaks of the "wandering heart" of the disciple and urges him to
"Know Himself"-- as a Mind-being, free and independent, with the
responsibility to become one of Nature's true and dependable, impersonal and
virtuous assistants.

The "Lower Iddhi" (or siddhis - powers of emotion and mind) have a dual
range:
 
1. the personal physical, and,  

2. emotional senses (the "Lower Mind" - Kama-Manas -- may be included
here).  

Those make report -- vibrations -- transmitted to brain centers, there to
create images for the "Rajah of the Senses" (Kama-Manas) to perceive.

The sensations centered in the physical plane of touch are: Seeing,
Hearing, Smelling, Tasting and a capacity to define objects by touch-feeling
them.  

A second level is created internally in our Lower Mind as an additional
layer of emotion, evoked by those vibrations, which impacts and causes them.


Memory on the emotional level (Kama-Manas) assists in developing pictures
of past similarities. Together, a fanciful vision may be newly drawn. It is
full of uncertainties, fears, questions, and a range of possible future
situations may then be created as potentials impacting potential events:
physical and emotional. 

There is a confusion created of many possibilities. This is "Asat" or a
series of false environments.

To make progress HARMONY and order have to be restored. The pupil is the
Perceiver: Manas. If he learns to appeal to ATMA-BUDDHI within, he can
insulate himself from the emotional impact of these fancies that arise in
Kama-Manas and be "indifferent" to them.

Manas can call at will upon the superior Spiritual Powers of BUDDHI (or the
accumulated wisdom of experience over many incarnations), and the HIGHER
SELF - ATMA. 

That is Nada - the VOICE of silent SPIRITUAL SOUND. It is this "inner
sound" that kills the outer, it is important to realize this is actually the
"Voice" of eternal Truth, the Dharma (duty), as well as the LAW (Karma) of
the Universe that can be now focused through the attentive, impersonal mind
of the pupil.

At that point the Man-Manas is the slayer of the Lower Manas - the Rajah,
the "Thought Producer, who awakes illusion."  

If he unites himself to the divine Speaker within, he can secure true
Memory. 

Order restored, the Lower Personal elements are brought to check and
reformed into a harmonious whole.

Thus, the "Disciple" is said to "slay the Slayer [of the Real]"


Best wishes,

	

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Zakk 
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 11:53 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Self and Rebirth

>The mind is the slayer of the real" [ Voice p. 3 top ]

Here the "real" is conditional reality which is "slayed" by superimposing
an imputational reality over it.

-----If "real" is considered the Absolute, then the mind
is the slayer of the Absolute. This would not be an
incorrect statement.-----


Beness has no
observer and no Motion and no Space and no Time. <

-----Observer is an interesting term. It can apply to eyesight.
Does an individual, being an observer, disappear if the eyesight
disappears? It would not seem so. An expanded definition
can bring forth an expanded understanding. An observer is
generally regarded as one perceiving through senses. In a
state where senses are non-existent, the defining of observer
in this manner, would also state that observation does not exist.
Observation can be defined as "an awareness of".
It can be perceived that observation does occur. The manner
of the observation will be according to the particular state.
In a non-sense state, it would be in a non-sense manner.
An individual who has dominately observed through the senses
would have a difficult, if not impossible time, comprehending
how this could be. Non-compehension does not dispell what is.
Beness experiences Beness. This is a manner of observation.
Beness is Beness's observer. Space experiences space.
No self, no senses, etc. exist, only space. Yet space experiences
space. Space observes space. The presence of space is
experienced by space, which is a manner of awareness. It is
not self awareness, but a type of awareness none-the-less.----


We never find a self anywhere and eventually we must
conclude that one doesn't exist. Here the "we" refers to our current I's
self-identification as a human being.<

----There are different avenues of thought that may be
entertained. If "parts" are illusion of being separate, then
the self is not an aggregate of "parts". One who keeps
the "illusion" or "separateness", would say that it is parts.
Conditional reality is experienced under the conditions of
which it exists. Conditional does not mean "unreal" nor
"non-existent". A self exists under the conditions which
a self would exist. Self is neither unreal nor non-existent.
It is unreal and non-existent where there are no conditions
for it to exist or be real. As there is a "confounding of
planes", in the same basic sense, there is "confounding of
realities". It is like taking words out of context. The words
are to be applied to the situation in which they were existent
in. Self is to be applied to the situation in which it is existent
in. Otherwise it can be misunderstood. To say "No self
exists", is to have an incomplete statement, for it both does
and does not exist. It is dependent on the situation / state.
That the experience of self changes does not negate the
experience, reality, or existence of self. Self, in the presented
line of thinking, is defined as the identity or identification of / by
the "I". The "I" can be related to the term "consciousness
center" as used by HPB. The "I" is what is permanent. It is
the same in one lifetime to the next. One second to the next.
It is unchanging. The "I" is experienced by beings continually
but may not be recognized. The self in which is it's identity
is what is mainly recognized. To see self as either existent
or non-existent would not be as optimal as to see self as
both, and one as equal as with the other. Neither is truer
nor falser than the other. It is the confounding of reality /
taking out of context that can cause confusion and be
misleading. The mixing up of realities is the mixing up of
conditions, the mixing up of laws, the mixing up of
experiences, the mixing up of understandings. Each has
it's place, purpose, function, and interrelationship. ----

>Now ask yourself, Is
this a single unit, a self? Or is it yet another aggregate?<

----The skandhas are an aggregate. Aggregates are the
reality in which the human experiences' consists of.
Whether a self is perceived as a unit or an aggregate is
a matter of personal conception. Either way, a self is
perceived, experienced, and therefore real and existent.
When the "I" no longer identifies with a "self", it is no
longer "real".-----

<But there is no self as a single permanent enitity or thing.<

----Self does not exist under the condition given. But it does
under other conditions given.----

> Telling a newbie that there is no
self would likely not go down well because they do not have a worldview yet
that can accept such an idea as a possibility. <

-----If a newbie were to be presented both perspectives
of self and non-self, as well as the situations pertaining
to both, it is possible that it may be taken well.----

>Seasoned Theosophists should
have a worldview that would accept what I am saying as a remote possibility
so that they can at least think and speculate on it.<

----Those who are "seasoned" can also be less open than
a "newbie". Many can be set in their thought lines and
not entertain anything outside of it. I would imagine that
you have experienced this in the past.
Personally speaking, I perceive and understand what
you have stated and do not dispute it. I also perceive
other perspectives that may seem paradoxal, but actually
are not. I do not wish to limit what I perceive for that
would limit understanding. ------