Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00316)

8/28/2005 5:19 PM

Dear Gerry:

As I see and understand

Because our embodied mind is linked to the UNIVERSAL MIND or MAHAT which is
an attribute (?) of the ABSOLUTE, there are no barriers that it cannot
traverse or link as needed.

Our present limitations and incapacities are agreeably explained by the
concept of universal MAYA == when the UNIVERSE is in its temporary phase of
"manifestation."

But the "maya" is dispersed by the innate knowledge (wisdom) of the BUDDHI
principle (when linked to MANAS) that every component of Nature (the
UNIVERSE in manifestation) has as a part of its essential constitution.  

If we can adopt the label (?) Monad for these innumerable constituents and
grasp the concept that they are of seven "grades" of "progress," [S D I
570-575] then the Monad that is in the human stage (or grade), is at present
undergoing the trials and tribulations of self-mastery and self-knowledge.

To consider that the UNIVERSE as radiated from the ABSOLUTE operates under
universal, immutable and compassionate LAWS cannot bed demeaning to any
Monad, since each is for itself in its essence an administrator of the same
universal impersonal and altruistic LAWS. 

It seem s to me that what we are doing now as a mass of minds is discovering
this fact and beginning to acquire an concept of how responsible we actually
are. We not only receive our "karma," but as Spiritual beings, resident in
material forms, we are also KARMA as the ever-present and active LAW of
cooperation, benevolence and BROTHERHOOD. 

I think that we are also faced with a seeming paradox, as the material of
which our evanescent and mayavic forms are composed are themselves Monads
each in its own level and place of perfect need. Who is this to be
regulated in such an incomprehensibly vast SPACE where incomprehensibly
small units swarm? -- Unless each is both a mirror of the grand WHOLE, and
in itself, is a UNIVERSE to still more minute forms and aspects of LIFE ? 

It seems to me that this ever existent balancing point of consciousness,
intelligence and progress synthesizes the actual work that a period of
Manvantaric evolution for the entire WHOLE demands. No wonder that a grasp
and comprehension of this as a pattern, a schema, a living WORK is startling
and almost incomprehensible as our present brain-mind equipment is very much
attached to our resent personalities and their very limited experience this
life around.   

This is the "magic" of occult wisdom as I think I begin to grasp some of its
parameters. 

I must say to you that ever since we have been exchanging views your
dwelling on the evanescent and instability of MAYA has helped me to try and
find out what it is that serves as counterpoint to maya and is therefore
stable.

Look again at this, as I think it contains the hints I secured to
understand:


"We are at first inclined to suppose that the field of action of this
quality is the senses alone; but Krishna teaches that its empire reaches
beyond those and includes the heart and the intellect also. The incarnated
soul desiring knowledge and freedom finds itself snared continually by
tamas, which, ruling also in the heart and mind, is able to taint knowledge
and thus bewilder the struggler.
 
Among the senses particularly, this force has sway. And the senses include
all the psychical powers so much desired by those who study occultism. It
does not at all follow that a man is spiritual or knows truth because he is
able to see through vast distances, to perceive the denizens of the astral
world, or to hear with the inner car. 

In this part of the human economy the dark quality is peculiarly powerful.
Error is more likely to be present there than elsewhere, and unless the seer
is self governed he gets no valuable knowledge, but is quite likely to fall
at last, not only into far more grievous error, but into great wickedness.
 
We must therefore begin, as advised by Krishna, with that which is nearest
to us, that is, with our senses. We cannot slay the foe there at first,
because it is resident also in the heart and mind. By proceeding from the
near to the more remote, we go forward with regularity and with certainty of
conquest at last.

Therefore he said, "In the first place, restrain thy senses." If we neglect
those and devote ourselves wholly to the mind and heart, we really gain
nothing, for the foe still remains undisturbed in the senses. By means of
those, when we have devoted much time and care to the heart and mind, it may
throw such obscurations and difficulties in the way that all the work done
with the heart and mind is rendered useless. 

It is by means of the outward senses and their inner counterparts that a
great turmoil is set up in the whole system, which spreads to the heart and
from there to the mind, and, as it is elsewhere said: "The restless heart
then snatches away the mind from its steady place." 

We thus have to carry on the cultivation of the soul by regular stages,
never neglecting one part at the expense of another. Krishna advises his
friend to restrain the senses, and then to "strengthen himself by himself." 

The meaning here is that he is to rely upon the One Consciousness which, as
differentiated in a man, is his higher self. By means of this higher self he
is to strengthen the lower, or that which he is accustomed to call "myself."

It will not be amiss here to quote from some notes of conversation with a
friend of mine. 

"Our consciousness is one and not many, nor different from other
consciousnesses. It is not waking consciousness or sleeping consciousness,
or any other but consciousness itself. 

"Now that which I have called consciousness is Being. The ancient division
was:
 
Sat, or Being; }
|
Chit, or Consciousness, Mind; } These together are called
Sat-chit-ananda. 
|
Ananda, or Bliss. }
 
"But Sat— or Being— the first of the three, is itself both Chit and Ananda. 

The appearing together in full harmony of Being and Consciousness is Bliss
or Ananda. Hence that harmony is called Sat-chit-ananda. 

"But the one consciousness of each person is the Witness or Spectator of the
actions and experiences of every state we are in or pass through. It
therefore follows that the waking condition of the mind is not separate
consciousness.
 
"The one consciousness pierces up and down through all the states or planes
of Being, and serves to uphold the memory— whether complete or incomplete—
of each state's experiences. 

"Thus in waking life, Sat experiences fully and knows. In dream state, Sat
again knows and sees what goes on there, while there may not be in the brain
a complete memory of the waking state just quitted. In Sushupti— beyond
dream and yet on indefinitely, Sat still knows all that is done or heard or
seen. 

"The way to salvation must be entered. To take the first step raises the
possibility of success. Hence it is said, 'When the first attainment has
been won, Moksha (salvation) has been won.' 

"The first step is giving up bad associations and getting a longing for
knowledge of God; the second is joining good company, listening to their
teachings and practicing them; the third is strengthening the first two
attainments, having faith and continuing in it. Whoever dies thus, lays the
sure foundation for ascent to adeptship, or salvation." [BHAGAVAD GITA
Notes: 96-100
———————

Best wishes

Dallas

==================================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:25 AM
To: 
Subject: RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?


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." >>

Truth is a funny thing, Dal, and we each tend to see it our own way. To me,
the truth about the seven principles is that each is itself sevenfold and
none of them are permanent.


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?  

Again, we have a different viewpoint about what is truth. I do not believe
that the "rules and laws" of our universe are "established by Nature." 
Such a belief simply reifies nature and keeps us bound in imputational
reality. The rules and laws of our universe are created and maintained by
all of the particpants within it, including ourselves, acting collectively
in a huge cooperative sharing. There is no need to impute Nature to this
sharing. It is only when we are able to see that we ourselves are
participants, that we begin to gain conscious control over it. We have the
choice of following these rules consciously or unconsciously or to not
follow them. The choice to not follow them results in our no longer being a
participant.


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.]  

No, that is not why they were set up. This universe is set up for us to
experience things and to cooperate in a vast sharing exercise that is both
entertaining and fun. It is like a wondrous dream, a beautiful mirage, an
enjoyable play or movie. Like a long dream, it seems very real while we are
here, but none of it is permanent.


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? 

Science attempts to solve the mysteries of the physical plane. And each
revelation begets more questions and more mysteries. Theosophy attempts to
solve the mysteries of all seven planes, and again each revelation begets
more questions and more mysteries (called paradoxes). Why is this? Perhaps
because there are no intellectual answers, no logical purpose, no rationale
for it all, because none is needed.


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.  

I do not believe that ONE emates from ZERO. Such a thing has been
demonstrated over and over as a "paradox" because it can only be true if we
establish a "causeless cause" which is logical nonsense. The source of
mathematics, like the source of everything, is its initial assumptions.
Mathematics only works after certain assumptions are made, and then only
within those assumptions as Godel mathematically proved. If we assume that
we have a permanent self, or Self if you prefer, or if we assume that ONE
emanates from ZERO, then we arrive at the paradox of a causeless cause.
What this assumption does, Dal, is stretch karma as causation all the way
to the Absolute, which is logically impossible. The Absolute cannot "cause"
anything because it is outside of time and cause needs time to have an
effect. Blavatsky knew this and came up with her "causeless cause" as a
paradoxical necessity. Her Teachers, especially her Buddhist Teachers, knew
very well that the initial assumption was a false one but did not think
that the western wrold was ready for the truth.


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 ). 

As you say yourself, we recognize the ONE only intellectually. It is not an
experiential reality. There is Beness or nonduality or ultimate reality,
and there is the conditional reality of aggregates as duality. There is no
ONE anywhere except as an intellectual concept, and a false one at that.
There are no numbers, not even zero, in Beness. But in conditional reality
we have the entire number system which is infinte, having both positive and
negative numbers to demonstrate its dual nature.


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]  

All of this is manifestation, and it all takes place in conditional
reality. At the highest levels we have TWO, or duality. Duality implies
Two, not One. This Two exists experientially as a self and no self, or as
an I-Not-I Monad on the highest subplane of the first cosmic plane.There is
no ONE. There cannot be a One. There is a Two, and this Two is a monadic I
and Not-I. From this Two, everything else comes into manifestation.

Saying that something is a "monad" does not make it permanent. At best it
implies a relative permanence.


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. 

I tried my hand at coin collection, but my entire set was stolen by one of
our foster children, so I gave it up. Anyway, what is gold to you is copper
to me, Dal. 


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. 

Agreed.


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. 

Dal, what makes a counterfeit a counterfeit? Isn't it only because there is
a mutual agreement as to what we will call pure gold? As far as experience
is concerned, a pretty metal is a pretty metal and who cares about
"counterfeit?" My wife has both zirconioms (spelling ??) and real diamonds.
Her fake diamonds shine and sparkle brighter than the real diamonds do. But
the diamonds are worth more because of our society's mutual agrreement that
they are worth more and for no other reason.


Unless this more thorough type of assay is used, he can be fooled. 

If one wants a pretty ornament, then who cares about real versus
counterfeit? Such things only matter when society sets up arbitrary rules
about real versus fake. When the white man sold Manhatten Island to the
Indians for pretty trinkets, they felt that they now "owned" the land. The
concept of land ownership was not in the minds of the Indians who liked the
sparkel of pretty trinkets and who considered the white man to be insane.


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. 

An assumption of real versus fake leads one to desire the real and to avoid
the fake. But if they can't tell the difference, then they have to rely on
those who claim that they know. Once the initial assumption is questioned,
then one can laugh as real and fake and not worry about such silly things.

Suppose one is dreaming, and in the dream sees what appears to be gold. If
the dreamer doesn't know for sure, she may have to find an authoirty. But
the fact of the matter is that the dreamer, the authority, and the gold,
are all dream elements that have no intrinsic nature or permanence.


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 ! 

Dal, there is no right and wrong, no real versus unreal. All we human
beings can possibly do is to observe and then interpret our observations.
There is nothing else to be done, and no reasson for anything else to do.
As far as a Path is concened, we again make observations and
interpretations. On a Path we read and study, and then we experiment by
making direct observations for verification. If we can experientially
verify what we have read or studied, then we place that information into
our worldview and move on. Trying to hang onto what is real and reject what
is unreal is a hopeless enterprise that will never be successful.


<< 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?" ]
>>

Computers are just one result of our 5th Race emphasis on manas. A "precise
knowledge of the Universe" is something that is not attainable. The
universe is infinite in know-ability, so it is like traveling down a road
that has no end. There is no need for a precise knowledge. There is,
however, a need for experiential knowledge.


<< 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. >>

We each set up our own authorities, and these always depend on the current
status of our worldview. There is a subtle but important difference between
"foist" and "share." The only thing that any of us can claim as
authoritative is our own direct experiences. The "thus have I heard" stuff
is intellectual and not necessarily authoritative unless we want it to be.
But if you tell me that you have experiened something, then I will respect
that even though I may harbor my own interpretations of it.


<< 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
this. >>

You are consistent with your "testing" Dal. I wonder what it is exactly,
that you have tested? The only valid testing that we can do as human beings
is to have direct experiences. If I am told that an astral plane exists,
then my test is to experience it for myself. In the case of the astral
plane, I have experienced it many times, and so I feel that I have tested
it sufficiently for me to include it in my worldview. In the case of
anatman, this doctrine can be tested by looking for the self and not
finding it anywhere even though we appear to have a conventional self
within us somewhere, the fact that it is unfindable leads me to conclude
that its reality is imputational.

Enough for now,

Jerry S.