Re: Theos-World RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?
Aug 27, 2005 03:37 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Dallas,
JHE
As for TRUTH, if you mean an ultimate Truth, its very existence is a
matter of debate.
------------------------------------------------------------
DTB Who debated it? Why ?
Oh, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Comte, Kant, Nietzsche, Pierce, Popper,
Russell, Tarski, Tolstoy, Wittgenstein etc. etc.
all argued the issue in different ways. Why? Why not?
Are Minds incapable of encompassing and assimilating it?
HPB postulates and absolute Truth. However, I have never seen a
statement by her that ABSOLUTE TRUTH can be encompassed by the human
mind. Have you?
I thought "Manas" was described as a fragment of MAHAT -- the Universal Mind
-- the "soul" and the "intellectual understanding" as a manifested
reflection of "All-Wisdom," and the first aspect of Parabrahm, and Pradhana
[S D II 81, 230, 378 ; S D I 75, 110, 256, 335, 373, 420, 451, 572 ]
Our globe is said to be a progeny of Mahat S D I 260 -- and we, the
"Manasa-putras" are its "sons" [ S D II 58-9, 103, 167, 230 ]
Well, this can be taken as a statement of Absolute Truth in Theosophical
teachings. By Absolute Truth, I mean, that which is true in all cultures
in all times. Other expressions of Absolute Truth may be found in other
religions and philosophies. For instance, in Islam: "God is Great." In
conservative Christianity: "God hates homosexuals." For Kant: "Act
only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law."
Outside of philosophy and religion, Truth is also sought in mathematics,
science and law. Each disciplines uses different methods to achieve
different goals, and their truths are presupposed by the assumptions
which underlie each discipline. For instance, 2+2=4 is a mathematical
truth based upon our notions of counting. 100 divided by 0 equals 0 is
also a mathematical truth, but less intuitively evident.
Other arguments for the existence of Absolute Truth are based upon
linguistic mind games. For instance: "There are no round squares and
there are no square circles." Or, to deny the existence of Absolute
Truth is making an Absolute statement, which proves the existence of
Absolute Truth.
There is much more that I could say, but this is enough for now.
I have always abhorred "faith" which to me signifies: an improvable blind
belief" and why should I take anything important as "true" without
verification ? How do I know the assertion is AUTHORITATIVE ?
From my perspective, I see no difference between the Christian who
accepts the Bible as authoritative and the Theosophist who accepts the
Mahatma Letters as authoritative. Instead, I would see it in a
relative sense. That is: The Bible is authoritative for Christians and
the Mahatma Letters are authoritative for Theosophists.
A sense of cooperative and interactive brotherhood under impersonal and
universal Law, would certainly tend to give a reasonable assurance of
veracity to any proposition placed before it ?
Is that not the tacit basis for all legislation and legal procedures -- and
we may see this operating throughout the world ? Why should philosophy
forego that advantage ? What does "common sense" say?
I don't believe this is the basis for all legislation and legal
procedures. According to my late Lawyer, American law derived from
British common law. In the case of Islamic law, I understand it to
derive from the Koran. Jewish law comes from the Torah and interpreted
through the Talmud.
Where are the "relative truths" emanating from? (knowledge of detail or
measurement of differences and separateness) .
According to one current school of thought, relative truths are an
illusion caused by the fact that the predicate "is true" exists in our
language.
If we have access to a knowledge of the "ultimate units of time" and
"space," we might be able to determine (approximately) what some of the
"relative (mayavic) truths" are.
But, since we don't, the argument becomes circular. See, for instance,
Anselm's famous perfect island argument for the existence of God.
JHE
As for the gold metaphor: I think that the manner of one's search
depends upon one's mining techniques. I prefer an historical approach
to understanding (but also like to use others too). Some prefer a
phenomenological approach. Others, an essentialist approach and, still
others, a post-modern approach etc. It appears that you prefer the
essentialist approach. That seems to work for you. The historical
approach works for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
DTB I did not mean mining techniques or molding methods. I allegorized
GOLD for TRUTH.
I got your metaphor. I am also using GOLD as a metaphor ("allegory" is
the wrong word here) for TRUTH. I just took it a little further.
Is that under the impulse of Manas or of indecisive and thoughtless,
mindless Kama ? I thought we were supposed, at this period in the great
cycle, to be ridding ourselves of "belief" and entering the realm of logic,
reason and proof?
That "period" of "logic, reason and proof" began with Comte Positivism
in the 1850's. HPB writes against it in Isis Unveiled, by the way.
Today, we call this approach to truth "Modernism" or "Essentialism."
This approach was hierarchical in nature, and came to be questioned in
the 1960's when Thomas Kuhn came out with his important work "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While "logic, reason and proof"
are still alive and well, they are no longer used in the old
hierarchical structure. However, this "manasic approach," if you want
to call it that, is only useful for relative truths in certain
applications.
One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is one
that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS.
I understand that to be your intention. However, I have never seen an
instance where an essentialist approach yields anything other than
relative truths and a blind faith in transcendent ones. Have you?
If BUDDHI approaches the closest to ATMA, then why not use it as best we can
if we can secure some concept of its actuality and methods. [I found
Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS very helpful in this.]
As I understand HPB, she writes that Buddhic consciousness is only
achieved by one who becomes a Buddha. From my own experience based
upon training in Therevada Buddhist techniques (as opposed to
Patanjali's cryptic little book), one can enter a form of Buddhic
consciousness by (using my own words) focusing into a state of
consciousness of a nature which is pure awareness, which is formless
(i.e. not formed by thought). It takes a while to learn it, but it can
be done by anyone, it think. It is in itself very transforming. Once
one discovers it, everything changes. All of HPB's philosophical
arguments suddenly become understandable through direct experience--not
reason. That is the best I can explain it.
I am curious about the "historical method" you use? Can you share ?
Nothing special about it, and as I intimated earlier, I use whatever
approach works best for the situation. But the historical is generally
most useful for me.
To give an example: Last night I went to a town evangelical meeting
where the minister argued that followers of the wicca religion are
agents of evil forces, while Christian are agents for the forces of
good. The argument begins with the famous quote from Exodus, "never
suffer a witch to live." Therefore, God is opposed to the Wiccan
religion. Of course I immediately knew his statement is a bunch of
nonsense for a number of reasons, and can be shown to be so from a
number of approaches. Most convenient to me is an historical approach,
which go like this: The signifying Hebrew word in that passage
originally denoted a person who communed with the dead or with spirit to
gain information. They were not considered evil. It is just that the
writers of the book of Exodus were writing a series of laws for people
to follow. One item on their agenda was to discourage Jews from
involving themselves with Canaanite magic. When the Bible was
translated into Latin, the Hebrew term was (mis)translated as
"maleficom." Basically, one who brings harm to others by uttering
curses. Obvious, one term has nothing to do with the other. During
the time of King James, there was a belief in Witches--People who made
pacts with "Satan." James, was anxious to find an exterminate such
people, so he made sure that maleficom was translated into "witch,"
therefore, giving him Biblical justification to exterminate Witches.
The modern Wicca Religion began in the late 1940s, and is basically a
nature worshiping religion. Its followers do not practice communion
with the dead for prophesy, nor do they issue curses to harm others, nor
do they make pacts with "Satan." Therefore, historically there is no
relationship between the "witch" of Exodus, the "witch" of St. Jerome's
time, nor the "witch" of King James' time.
I have labored over years, reviewing the writings and ideas that those who
have succeeded HPB in writing on THEOSOPHY have recorded. I find (for me)
that they obscure more often than enlighten. Judge is an exception as a
writer, as he never assumes to correct or "know better than" either the
Masters or HPB. I am essentially independent and test everything I reads
with common sense and a sense of the orderliness and purpose of the
Universe, World, Humans, and atoms.
Others may read those writings differently and have different experiences.
JHE
This is all new to me. I have an interest in ancient coins, and have a
small collection of them. From all of my reading, they classify, date
and identify fakes purely by their appearance. I never heard of anyone
taking a valuable gold coin, and assay it (which would deface or destroy
the coin) in order to determine this information.
-----------------------------------------
DTB From what I have read [from texts on Gemology and Precious Metals]
only a very minute quantity is used and the integrity and value of the coin
is not impaired.
Sounds like a time consuming and expensive way to go about something
that can be done by the coin's appearance. However, I can understand,
that in the case of an extremely rare coin, a collector may want further
proof of its authenticity from a second method.
DTB
I also would say that every human is a Mind and a Free Thinker.
JHE
Some seem to be freer than others.
DTB
If you will concede me this as a fair basis or "source" then, may we can
proceed to details that I think are valid.
As a philosophical statement, it would need qualification. For
instance, I could say that every human is a physical body. Every human
being is a type of animal ect. Many statements can be made which are
just true as your's. By qualification, I mean that the statement, to be
philosophically significant, must lead one to a new insight (i.e. valid
details that go beyond points made in Theosophical texts), as opposed to
proving a pre-existing philosophical system.
JHE
Yes, I gladly concede to you that you have created an excellent summary
of the source teachings according to your tradition.
------------------------------------
DTB There we go again: You assume I have adopted a "tradition." I say
I am independent, but use any "tradition," to the extent that it is fair,
free of bias, and true to reason and logic.
You have been with ULT for 60 years or more. Your vocabulary, use of
terms, phrasing, and mode of logic is representative of ULT tradition.
I do not see anything in your arguments, vocabulary, phrasing of
expressions, use of logic etc. that distinguishes you from the ULT
tradition. Perhaps you can point out the differences?
For example: I have been in life an editor of scientific material for may
years, and privately, a philosopher. The two are not incompatible to me.
THEOSOPHY seems to be the most balanced, all-inclusive and eclectic system
so far made available to us. It needs to be carefully studied so that each
student assures himself of its value. So, having found it the most useful
and truest so far, I defend it and its proponents.
I can hear Victor Endersby using the same words. Though, he began in
ULT in 1921, was an editor of scientific material, privately a
philosopher. Of course you are Victor are different people. Victor, in
addition was professionally an engineer, he wrote fantasy fiction for
recreation, and edited a Theosophical journal. He also described
Theosophy in much the same way as you.
In what way is "your tradition (mine)" different from yours, or any other ?
Different traditions have different "authorities." But, we have already
covered this.
Is it the ORIGINALS you are unsure of?
No, I'm pretty clear on that. I could recite to you the 'ORIGINALS' for
each Theosophical tradition.
Do you mean HPB did not bring Masters' message in full? [ In spite of what
They "the Masters" say and demonstrate ? ]
No. I understand the Theosophical teachings.
Can you give a summary of yours for comparison?
It would help me understand. Dal
My what?
Best
Jerry
W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
8/27/2005 5:12 AM
Dear Jerry:
Allow me to answer by inserting notes below in your text:
Dallas
=============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:17 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?
Dear Dallas,
-----------------------------------------------
DTB
As I wrote, we (or at least I) are not seeking to identify differences, we
are seeking for the TRUTH -- all of us. In metallurgy (or old alchemy) we
might say we are seeking for the highest known value: "gold."
JHE
As for TRUTH, if you mean an ultimate Truth, its very existence is a
matter of debate.
------------------------------------------------------------
DTB Who debated it? Why ?
Are Minds incapable of encompassing and assimilating it?
I thought "Manas" was described as a fragment of MAHAT -- the Universal Mind
-- the "soul" and the "intellectual understanding" as a manifested
reflection of "All-Wisdom," and the first aspect of Parabrahm, and Pradhana
[S D II 81, 230, 378 ; S D I 75, 110, 256, 335, 373, 420, 451, 572 ]
Our globe is said to be a progeny of Mahat S D I 260 -- and we, the
"Manasa-putras" are its "sons" [ S D II 58-9, 103, 167, 230 ]
-----------------------------------------------
JHE
Certain Evangelical faith based groups advocate the
existence of absolute Truth, and argue that they are the only means to
it. Personally, I don't believe that the question is answerable one
way or the other--rather, it is a matter of faith. So, I don't concern
myself with that question one way or the other. Rather, I am interested
in those relative truths (knowledge) which can lead to transcendent
truths (realization).
-----------------------------------------------------
DTB Lets then agree to look at it your way.
I have always abhorred "faith" which to me signifies: an improvable blind
belief" and why should I take anything important as "true" without
verification ? How do I know the assertion is AUTHORITATIVE ?
Who the ultimately bears the cost of time effort and money?
How many flit from "faith" to faith?"
Is that under the impulse of Manas or of indecisive and thoughtless,
mindless Kama ? I thought we were supposed, at this period in the great
cycle, to be ridding ourselves of "belief" and entering the realm of logic,
reason and proof?
The "Fifth Race" is due to develop mind as a faculty, and abandon frivolous
and selfish "passions and desires."
A sense of cooperative and interactive brotherhood under impersonal and
universal Law, would certainly tend to give a reasonable assurance of
veracity to any proposition placed before it ?
Is that not the tacit basis for all legislation and legal procedures -- and
we may see this operating throughout the world ? Why should philosophy
forego that advantage ? What does "common sense" say?
Where are the "relative truths" emanating from? (knowledge of detail or
measurement of differences and separateness) .
If we have access to a knowledge of the "ultimate units of time" and
"space," we might be able to determine (approximately) what some of the
"relative (mayavic) truths" are. But at present our instruments and
faculties are filtered through "physical gross matter ?" And that is said
to alter constantly, by both Science and Theosophy -- also, both use the
(mind) concept of the eternity and unalterable qualities of the "atoms."
Both accept the reign of universal law that governs the physical qualities
and interactions of substances. And we are beginning to suspect and
contact the realm of invisible and intangible substances -- [the electro-
and magneto-spheres associated with all objects in whatever state].
But inasmuch as forms continually vary from moment to moment (under the law
of the astral electro-magnetic life-fields) as atoms and sub-atoms of LIFE
come and go, (can we assume this is done individually and invariably under
Universal LAW or Karma?) stability is almost unobtainable from the point of
view of our physical plane observation -- am I right? Apparently the
electro-magnetic (place, location, time) fields are stronger than mere
physical bonding. And what are they? How do they come into existence? [How
does the body heal itself?]
Apparently Nature (the Living Universe) has her own plans and methods and
those have been in place since before we were born -- how far back we don't
know -- supersede ours. They could be the actual rules and order of all
evolution -- from within to the without.
So any physical measurement we may make, now or hereafter, has to depend on
"memory." For us stone, or one of the inert metals (like Titanium) appears
to be such a long-lasting record. But even those have limits and we can
hardly be sure of myths and traditions that are over 7,000 years in age.
How old are the Pyramids built by 3rd and 4th Race Initiates [ S D II
353; S D I 314-5 ] ?
How stable is our (human) memory? Are we yet able to penetrate to that
plane of indelible eternity (Akasa) where those records are inscribed by the
Lipika [S D I 103-5, 126-131, ? (or even to the records in the "astral
light?" ( S D I 59, 63). I assume the "Lipika" are actually one of the
highest functions of the living atoms of life themselves -- all immortals!
I can see, if this is a correct procedure, that "relative truths
(knowledge)" which can lead to "transcendent truths (realization)" means:
the "relative truths" gives evidence but no absolute detail about underlying
"transcendent truths" -- which 'the epoptai-Initiates' may secure as a
vision by "realization." Since this faculty is under development, and is
not yet a common property or means of inter-communication, there will be
room for inaccuracy and speculation at present. Is this not the method of
KAMA-MANAS ?
---------------------------------------------
JHE
As for the gold metaphor: I think that the manner of one's search
depends upon one's mining techniques. I prefer an historical approach
to understanding (but also like to use others too). Some prefer a
phenomenological approach. Others, an essentialist approach and, still
others, a post-modern approach etc. It appears that you prefer the
essentialist approach. That seems to work for you. The historical
approach works for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
DTB I did not mean mining techniques or molding methods. I allegorized
GOLD for TRUTH.
All the methods of "approach" you mention will fall under your "relative
truths (knowledge)" category -- to which my synthetic comments apply.
One gets lost in detail and as you suspect my "essentialist approach" is one
that strives to use the pure BUDDHI-MANAS and not the KAMA-MANAS.
If BUDDHI approaches the closest to ATMA, then why not use it as best we can
if we can secure some concept of its actuality and methods. [I found
Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS very helpful in this.]
I am curious about the "historical method" you use? Can you share ?
I have labored over years, reviewing the writings and ideas that those who
have succeeded HPB in writing on THEOSOPHY have recorded. I find (for me)
that they obscure more often than enlighten. Judge is an exception as a
writer, as he never assumes to correct or "know better than" either the
Masters or HPB. I am essentially independent and test everything I reads
with common sense and a sense of the orderliness and purpose of the
Universe, World, Humans, and atoms.
I think universal CONSCIOUSNESS -- "to know itself" -- periodically (but
under UNIVERSAL Karma) splits cyclically into countless fragments, each a
"potency" and a "mirror" of that ONE, SOLE and ever UNKNOWABLE -- and in
the administration of harmony, purpose and equality for all, each Monad
develops an independent yet cooperative Mind, which voluntarily abides by
the rules and regulations of the UNIVERSAL LAW (without surrendering its
individuality and potential of individual action) -- thus we all eventually
develop the ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS Spiritual Entity within ourselves and thus
become Mahatmas individually. I may be wrong on this, but I suspect I am
more right than wrong.
--------------------------------------------
DTB
Original minted gold coins have been counterfeited after that first casting
time for ages. But modern science enables us to assay them for their alloys
and impurities to the extent that a trained assayist can determine from a
sample the probable age and era of the casting of any coin. He discovers
when it was most likely cast, and whether the mix (impurities, other metals,
etc.) has been altered.
JHE
This is all new to me. I have an interest in ancient coins, and have a
small collection of them. From all of my reading, they classify, date
and identify fakes purely by their appearance. I never heard of anyone
taking a valuable gold coin, and assay it (which would deface or destroy
the coin) in order to determine this information.
-----------------------------------------
DTB From what I have read [from texts on Gemology and Precious Metals]
only a very minute quantity is used and the integrity and value of the coin
is not impaired.
--------------------------------------------
DTB
I also would say that every human is a Mind and a Free Thinker.
JHE
Some seem to be freer than others.
DTB
If you will concede me this as a fair basis or "source" then, may we can
proceed to details that I think are valid.
JHE
Yes, I gladly concede to you that you have created an excellent summary
of the source teachings according to your tradition.
------------------------------------
DTB There we go again: You assume I have adopted a "tradition." I say
I am independent, but use any "tradition," to the extent that it is fair,
free of bias, and true to reason and logic.
For example: I have been in life an editor of scientific material for may
years, and privately, a philosopher. The two are not incompatible to me.
THEOSOPHY seems to be the most balanced, all-inclusive and eclectic system
so far made available to us. It needs to be carefully studied so that each
student assures himself of its value. So, having found it the most useful
and truest so far, I defend it and its proponents.
Let me ask:
In what way is "your tradition (mine)" different from yours, or any other ?
SOURCE and BASIS ought to coincide? If they are fair and logical and true?
NO ? Possibly words make some difference, but not to the originals, surely?
Is it the ORIGINALS you are unsure of?
Do you mean HPB did not bring Masters' message in full? [ In spite of what
They "the Masters" say and demonstrate ? ]
Can you give a summary of yours for comparison?
It would help me understand. Dal
======================================
Best wishes,
Jerry
========================================
W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
8/25/2005
Dear Jerry:
Re: "Traditions"
As I wrote, we (or at least I) are not seeking to identify differences, we
are seeking for the TRUTH -- all of us. In metallurgy (or old alchemy) we
might say we are seeking for the highest known value: "gold."
What are the rules and laws established by Nature -- to run our Universe,
our world and our physical and conscious existence, and mental presence? Are
they not the "gold" of the entire system?
Are they not, since antiquity, set in place for our support, life and
well-being? [Not only ours, but that of all other beings, atoms, galaxies,
etc.]
Where and how did they evolve? Who guided, devised and set them going? Are
they impossible to discover?
Do not Science and Philosophy endeavour to solve those mysteries?
In mathematics, the rules of arithmetic may be seen as the source,
foundation and basics of the whole system of enumeration -- the enormous
complexity and measurement (in engineering, chemistry, physics, astronomy,
etc...) of detail that calculus expresses, is based on UNITY (the ONE) and
that in turn, may be imagined to radiate or emanate (?) from the
indescribable ZERO ( 0 ) that some denominate THE ABSOLUTE.
We recognize intellectually this ONE [that to us is quite indistinct (for it
is either too large or to small) and, to many, it appears to be devoid of
qualities] when "manifested into objectivity," becomes the TWO ( 2 ).
This has been designated a symbol for the countless indivisible (strings -
?) of ATMA-BUDDHI "monads." The symbolic analogy then proceeds to THREE (3
) that includes the PERCEIVER or MIND. [ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS]
Suppose we were numismatists -- coin collectors. Then, we might seek to find
true and authentic old coins for our collection. Let us take the rarest:
GOLD.
Original minted gold coins have been counterfeited after that first casting
time for ages. But modern science enables us to assay them for their alloys
and impurities to the extent that a trained assayist can determine from a
sample the probable age and era of the casting of any coin. He discovers
when it was most likely cast, and whether the mix (impurities, other metals,
etc.) has been altered. It is a genuine science and records have been kept
and are available to the experts and the students. As time passes a regular
table in time has been created that gives the assayer an idea of when and
where a casting has taken place.
Counterfeiters will often make a mold of a truly old coin, then use "modern
refined" gold to cast a facsimile of it. Then they age it superficially,
and then endeavor to sell it as a genuine antique. But the actual material
used (alloys with other metals, and impurities common to the actual time and
place of origin) have been detected and recorded.
Unless this more thorough type of assay is used, he can be fooled.
He may however decide to trust on "faith" and "belief" in the honesty and
veracity of the seller. The result is as all may expect.
Each seeker after TRUTH has to employ their own mind, trained to some
degree, so that he alone knows how much he can trust that. Very often our
desires and emotions try to make us decide in haste (and repent at leisure
?) without using the tedious kind of study needed to ensure accuracy and
logical reasons for conclusions offered. Then we find (as we have nowadays)
a number of concurrent dogmatic and authoritarian religions, opinions and
pronouncements -- and, perhaps, "traditions ?" -- and I have noticed that
indoctrination of the young proceeds all over the world. No alternatives are
offered !
The search for TRUTH leads any dedicated seeker (and, whether we know this
or not, all of us are such) day after day, and life after life, to acquire a
precise knowledge of the Universe we live in, and which has long been
established as a common and secure basis for all co-existent and
pre-existent beings. [As an example at hand, take the meticulous
fabrication of computers and the software that enables a "user" Mind -- as
well as many trained "programmer" Minds -- to run them with accuracy and
trust. There -- is constant verification with concurrent usage. Observe
the continual war between virus and anti-virus. Who are the "bad-guys?" ]
I think you will find these to be fair analogies to the general "search for
TRUTH" that many of us are engaged in. Dare we foist our findings on
others? Can we make any claims for "authority?" I would say NOT.
In my esteem, "traditions" count for very little unless they can be
demonstrated to be invariably true on testing, to the basic composition and
running laws of our UNIVERSE. THEOSOPHY clams to be an exposition of his.
You may say that our minds and emotions make us fallible, and I would agree
But why trust me? Consider the following:
1 If idealism and altruism resides in SPIRIT, and if this is
ubiquitous, then an aspect (ray, spark, etc.) of THAT is interiorly resident
in every being, monad, life-atom, human, -- and grain of sand -- each is
potentially, over an enormous period of time and experience, a human
mind-being. I know this is asking a lot because the implication is that all
Monads are immortals. We interiorly, are as monads, immortals. Hence, the
brotherhood of ALL, and the evolution of individual intelligence by means of
reincarnation and karma are needed, essential, basic and actual facts.
2 Shall we agree that all beings are united in that FACT of a common
LIFE -- ever together ? Physical, emotional and mental environments are
largely shared by us all, regardless of physical distance.
3 Differences (form, emotion, feeling, desires, mind, experience in
this life) are passing phases of the embodied consciousness -- of memories
and of appearances, and they are continually changing as the laws of
progress and continual interaction, demand that the Monads (each being an
eternal being having individually, some degree of progress) continually move
and alter within the parameters of the astral (electro-magnetic) framework
that underlies the presence and the environment of any and all physical and
non-physical forms. Thus the descriptive concept of "Maya" (illusion) is
used for our present physical matter knowledge, situation, condition and
universe. The forms change constantly, our knowledge is continually
changing and expanding, while the interior ONE SPIRITUAL ENTITY is forever
the SAME individual.
4 The "Eternal Pilgrim" [BUDDHI-MANAS] is the "Monad." The Monad is
described as SPIRIT-MATTER conjoined (sounds somewhat like the "String
Theory"). It is a duality and requires a coexistent MIND to serve as a
PERCEIVER and a link between these two extremes. Thus the "Duad" in
manifestation, is in our reality, always a "TRIAD."
5 It is ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS [a Triad] in us which is the eternal and
changeless Perceiver and the ruler of our Lower (embodied brain - Mind) and
emotions. In the Kosmos it is MAHAT or the UNIVERSAL MIND.
[Have a look at what is said in the SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. II, p. 167 (see
below) about a resident Tutor assisting the development of each independent
Mind being. I find there is a correlation to this as expressed by HPB in
TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp. 64-5 (below)
If you will concede me this as a fair basis or "source" then, may we can
proceed to details that I think are valid.
I prefer using HPB's The SECRET DOCTRINE, The VOICE OF THE SILENCE and
The KEY TO THEOSOPHY as basic source explanations for the details THEOSOPHY
teaches. I do not feel I need an intermediary to explain them. I have time
and can use a dictionary and an encyclopedia when needed, "Google" is a
great help to secure source materials for study.
But every one is free to choose their own "Path," and, spend as much time as
is needed to eventually achieve SUPREME PERFECTION.
I also would say that every human is a Mind and a Free Thinker.
Best wishes,
Dallas
===================
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
