Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00590)

June 17 2005


RE Meditation & Patanjali


Dear Gerry:

Labeling has always got me into trouble because it does not reflect
individual development and freedom.

I try to find if possible the causes.

I think all understanding depends on our ability to grasp the concept of
immortality for the INDIVIDUALITY -- the troublesome Monad (three in one).

HPB did not "grow spiritually" She has the Masters' wisdom of ages to back
her, and They corrected her work as needed. Alterations in the use of terms
seems to arise because of the need and development among her readers.

Sorry to be so brief -- time and energy today.

Best to you, 

Dallas
 
-------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 10:10 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: Meditation & Patanjali

--- Some of Patanjali may appear elementary. But to me it has great depth.
---

I am surprised to hear this since you have been a Theosophist most of your
life. 


<< I am sorry you waded through that. I note your comments -- I say to
myself: if only we could converse we might clear up those differences of
meaning. >>

I used "waded" because much of your post seemed to have nothing to do with
the topic, a topic that I find interesting. Yes, a sit-down would be
helpful. But I am not all that sure that we need to agree on all points.


<< I also note that even in the 16 years [ ISIS UNVEILED to MY BOOKS ] HPB
published [ 1875 - 1891 ] designations seem to change -- yet, even there I
also found that descriptions made for reconciliation. >>

Yes, she changed working as she grew spiritually. Hopefully we all do this.
MY BOOKS is one of my favorite articles.


<< Principles, bodies, sheaths, upadhis, koshas, [S D I 157, II 596, et
cetera...] and the words used in Kabalah, and by Plato, and in the Egyptian
mysteries -- are all resolvable. >>

Are principles also bodies as Judge infers in Ocean? Also the writings of
AB and CWL suggest that these are two words for the same thing. Blavatsky
also suggests the same thing when she uses the principle of buddhi as an
upadhi for atma implying that buddhi is both a principle and body. My point
here is that I see bodies and minds as skandhas, and principles are how
those skandhas function.


<< I am not convinced that our "modern psychologists" help -- at least not
me. They focus on the "personality" of this life which vanishes almost
entirely at death. >>

Dal, I studied both Jungian psychology and transpersonal psychology at
university, and came to appreciate them. If we understand how the human
psyche functions, we can intuitively infer how our Higher Self functions
because as above so below.


<<THEOSOPHY concerns itself with the "Individuality" (ATMA - BUDDHI -
MANAS ) >>

OK, although to me it also concerns itself with other things like
atma-buddhi.


<< You get annoyed (seemingly) with it being designated a "triple Monad." 
>>

I get "annoyed" at the cavalier way Blavatsky throws terms around. I
believe that she does this deliberately as blinds. Today's open and
receptive climate does not need blinds. In most cases her "monad" is what
we experience as a "self" in different kingdoms and on different planes. 


<<Are they not to be considered a conjoined immortal threesome -- that
during periods of manifestation live and move together ? >>

I am not sure what you mean by immortal, and to me it is a relatively
meaningless catch word. Is not the atma-buddhi-manas monad the Reincarnating
Ego? Does not this Ego acquire the "aromas" of each life? Does this not
make it grow? Is not growth a type of change? If something changes over
time into something else, how can it be said to be permanent? When we look
at this Ego and experience it, we are experiencing only a slice of it -
that slice which is in the present. Our experience of it changes with each
lifetime. Will the "real" Reincarnating Ego please stand up? No? I didn't
think so. Dal, I like your "during periods of manifestation" and I think
this aspect needs to be emphasized more.


<< The main problem (as I see it) is that THEOSOPHY takes into account the
Spiritual aspect of evolution, and studies this and the evolution of all
material "forms." >>

Theosophy also tells us that matter and spirit are two aspects of the same
thing. So, if matter evolves, so does spirit, and so their combinations.
This matter-spirit is the basic substance of conditional reality.

Look at any physical object. What you see is its form aspect, the
matter-side of the coin. Its spiritual aspect is not in some other
location, not off in the distance. It is right there with the form aspect.
If you look more closely and think about it, the physical object you are
looking at comes into existence, changes somewhat over time, and then
decays or disintegrates over time until it no longer exists. It does this
because it lacks permanence. This very lack of permanence is its spiritual
aspect, and it is right there permeating the object. Every physical object
has its own spiritual aspect within it. We just usually fail to see it.


<< It thus covers:
1	Immortality of the Monad [Spirit-Matter-Mind]
2	Reincarnation [into Material "principles / sheaths]
3	Virtue and Vice -- KARMA [free choice between 
brotherly cooperation or selfish isolation] >>

I see this as exoteric Theosophy. It posits a Reincarnating Ego that
reincarnates through karma. Where do you think maya comes into this
picture? I do believe that the skandhas and principles have a conditional
reality. I view such things as Ego and ego, personality and individuality,
the nirvanee, the soul, and especially monads, as our own imputations that
we superimpose onto those skandhas and principles as we experience them. A
more technically correct phraseology would be that the principles of
atma-buddhi-manas are collectively experienced by our somewhat purified
skandhas, as if they were a monad or self.


<< 4	Total evolution under an equable universal Plan of all Monads.>>

Exoteric: We evolve through reincarnation and karma from unselfconscious
monads to self-conscious monads.
Esoteric: We self-express in conditional reality through reincarnation and
karma from a spiritual condition downward into material forms and then
return to that same spiritual condition.
The exoteric version has paradoxes and logic problems that the esoteric
version does not have.
Your "Plan" is the mutual agreement that we each make prior to entering a
life wave. In it we agree to self-express within the restrictions and
definitions of that life wave. No one puts a gun to our head and forces us
to join a life wave. It is a voluntary agreement, a free choice that we
make.


<< As to "Spiritual Development" and on the subject of "Man's evolution" it
teaches:
1	That each spirit is a manifestation of the One Spirit, and thus a
part
of all. It passes through a series of experiences in incarnation, and is
destined to ultimate reunion with the Divine. >>

I dislike the term "One Spirit" for the same reason that I gave to Zakk for
his "one consciousness." There is no "One Spirit" except as an imputation.
If we are truly monads, then we each have our own spirit, albeit exactly
the same as everyone's else's.


<< 2	That this incarnation is not single but repeated, each individuality
becoming re-embodied during numerous existences in successive races and
"globes" of our chain, and accumulating the experiences of each incarnation
towards its perfection. [see S D I 200] >>

Exoteric: We require many lifetimes of evolution to gain the experience
necessary for our eventual perfection.
Esoteric: We already are perfect, and we reincarnate for the sheer fun of
it, as a form of creative self-expression, or perhaps to help others.


<< 3	That between adjacent incarnations, after the grosser elements are 
purged away (from the "monads of lesser experience" that accompany as
skandhas, and provide the "Monad" with the 'sheaths' of the Soul") , comes
a period of comparative rest and refreshment, called Devachanee ”the soul
being therein prepared for its next descent into material life.>>

This is pure exotericism and has inherent logic problems. Devachan is the
"land of the gods" and after death most of us are re-born there for a time.
The devachanee can be a lesser god or higher god. In buddhism the lesser
god is called a jealous god or Titan because it retains some kamic
emotions, while the higher god is without any emotional component. The
notion of "rest and refreshment" is relative and technically is a blind.


<< The constitution of man is subdivided in a septenary manner, the main
divisions being those of Spirit [ATMA & BUDDHI], Soul [MANAS -- another
trinity, as there is (1) pure Manas, (2) [Buddhi-Manas, and (3)
Kama-Manas], and Body [(1) physical, (2) astral, (3)Life Energy (Prana),
and, (4) Desire & Emotion or KAMA]. These 7 divisions and their relative
development govern his subjective condition after death. >>

Just look at all of our aggregational components and tell me where the
"self" is in all of this? Is not the "self" an arbitrary combination of two
or more of these components?


<< Note: Spirit is not a seventh principle. It is the synthesis, of the
whole, and is equally present in the other six. It pervades all space and
the whole Universe.>>

Insofar as we human beings are concerned, your "spirit" is the auric egg.
Spirit is not a principle because it is a substance.


<< The present various divisions (principles - consisting of 'skandhas')
can only be used as a general working hypothesis, to be developed and
corrected as students advance and themselves develop in understanding their
continual interaction.>>

It would be more technically correct to avoid identifying the principles
with the skandhas, they are two different things,

<< The nature of each incarnation depends upon the balance struck between
the merit and demerit of the previous life or lives —upon the way in
which the man has lived and thought; and this law is inflexible and wholly
just.>>

Again, this is pure exotericism. To say that a child who is born cripple or
deformed is the result of some kind of justice for past actions is not only
wrong but lacks compassion. I dislike Bill's free choice for the same
reason. If we all have had countless past lives, then we have all done lots
of bad things, so why aren't we all born crippled or deformed? Such
questions cannot be answered within this narrow exoteric perspective. And
to call such a gosh awful thing a "law" that is "inflexible and wholly
just" does not sit well with me at all. First of all it is not inflexible.
Second it is not just. It would perhaps be just if the victim could
remember what he did to deserve it, but so long as our past actions are
unremembered, there is no justice here and no "learning of lessons" either.


<< "Karma"— a term signifying two things, (1) the law of ethical
causation ("Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"); and (2) the
balance or excess of merit or demerit in any individual, determines the
main experiences of joy and sorrow in each incarnation, so that what we
call "luck" or "accident" is in reality "that which is deserved"—desert
acquired in past existence.>>

I like your two definitions of personal karma. Sometimes "luck" is simply
random chance, which does exist as such within our collective karma.


<< Karma is not all exhausted in a single life, nor is a person necessarily
in this life experiencing the effect of all his previous Karma; for some
may be held back by various causes. >>

Death and decay of the akandhas, the human body and mind, is itself a
sufficient cause for their rebirth. All of our past lives exist now in the
collective unconscious. All of our past personal karma exists now in our
genetic makeup. We can choose to let ourself be influenced by these or not.


<< When conscious union (after purification) of the embodied mind
[Kama-Manas] with the Divine {BUDDHI-Manas} is effected, all the events and
experiences of each incarnation are known. The records in the akasa are
visible to it.>>

The so-called Akashic Records are highly subjective and will tell us
whatever we want them to. It is not like reading the morning newspaper.
Blavatsky lived before Jung, and his term collective unconscious was not
available to her, so she went with Akashic Records. They are the very same
thing.


<< Theosophy further teaches:
1	That the essence of the process lies in the securing of supremacy,
to
the highest, the spiritual, virtuous elements of man's nature.>>

Theosophy teaches this, huh?


<< 2	That this is attained along four lines, among others,—
(a) The entire eradication of selfishness (or any selfish separative
vice) in all forms, and the cultivation of broad, generous sympathy in, and
effort for the good of others. [ see Jataka tales of the Buddha ] >>

I would go even further, I would say the entire eradication of self. The
Jataka Tales are exoteric stories for children.


<< (b) The absolute cultivation of the inner, spiritual man by meditation,
by reaching to and communion with the Divine, [the Inner HIGHER SELF: 
SPIRIT - ATMA - which is all-pervasive] and by exercise of the kind
described by Patanjali, i.e., incessant striving through close attention,
to embody an ideal end.>>

Man already is perfect. A Path includes techniques designed to reach this
realization.


<< (c) The control of fleshly appetites and desires, all lower, material
and selfish interests being deliberately subordinated to the behests of the
Ideals of the Spirit.>>

This is a temporary technique used on a Path for purification purposes.
Once purification is realized, such "control" is no longer necessary.


<< (d) The careful performance of every duty without desire for reward,
leaving results to the Universal and just Law.

Careful performance of duty is an exoteric idea used to keep children in
line. Actions should be spontaneous, and not forced into society's
definition of "duty." Adepts do NOT mold their actions according to any
perceived sense of "duty." 


<< 3	That while the above is incumbent on and practicable by all
religiously disposed men,>>

Dal, I would like to point out here that Christians killed Muslims during
the Crusades while being very much "religiously disposed." Religiously
disposed Catholics have killed religiously disposed Protestants and vice
versa Religiously disposed white men had black slaves in the south and
killed Indians in the west. 

Have to go now,

Jerry S.