Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00330)

Aug 31 2005

Dear Gerry:

I bite ! As I understand it from its only document a DECLARATION the U L
T has no "tradition." It recommends the study and testing of the original
presentation of THEOSOPHY -- as a better basis than someone's interposed
"opinion" or "simplification." 

So in a way whatever you may offer is compared (by me) with the original
presentation by HPB and the Masters. 

I recognize that words and ideas may differ. However, as I define my search
to ME, it is for the best method of expressing the situation whether the
present "reality" ( gone in a flash, and only a memory whereof remains --
maya ) or whether there is in fact an ineffaceable record of facts ( by the
"Lipika" on the "Akasa" -- or say it some other way).

Do the Buddhas exist or not?  

Is their WISDOM fact or fiction?  

Is the concept of "maya" actual reality or an approximation to the "TRUTH?"

It is pleasant t throw things out as we tootle along, -- but why the
journey?  
what's the end? or is there none? 

I agree that the ABSOLUTE cannot be made a subject for definitions, yet,
since it is a concept (however limited) of an "ORIGIN," all else (of
temporary existence) radiates /emanates / is contained by and in IT.  

I believe one may safely assume this has been operating for "long." If so
out of chaos, order, rules, laws of relationship -- KARMA -- may be granted
to emerge.

As I see it, SPACE, DURATION, and MOTION are inherent therein and somewhere
there is PURPOSE and GOAL. May be we will never finally define them!

--------------------------

May I quote from the SECRET DOCTRINE ? Vol. 1 108...

"(b) As the reader is supposed not to be acquainted with the Dhyani-Buddhas,
it is as well to say at once that, according to the Orientalists, there are
five Dhyanis who are the "celestial" Buddhas, of whom the human Buddhas are
the manifestations in the world of form and matter. Esoterically, however,
the Dhyani-Buddhas are seven, of whom five only have hitherto manifested,*
and two are to come in the sixth and seventh Root-races. They are, so to
speak, the eternal prototypes of the Buddhas who appear on this earth, each
of whom has his particular divine prototype. 

So, for instance, Amitabha is the Dhyani-Buddha of Gautama Sakyamuni,
manifesting through him whenever this great Soul incarnates on earth as He
did in Tzon-kha-pa.† [† The first and greatest Reformer who founded the
"Yellow-Caps," Gyalugpas. He was born in the year 1355 A.D. in Amdo, and was
the Avatar of Amitabha, the celestial name of Gautama Buddha. ]

As the synthesis of the seven Dhyani-Buddhas, Avalokiteswara was the first
Buddha (the Logos), so Amitabha is the inner "God" of Gautama, who, in
China, is called Amita(-Buddha). They are, as Mr. Rhys Davids correctly
states, "the glorious counterparts in the mystic world, free from the
debasing conditions of this material life" of every earthly mortal Buddha —
the liberated Manushi-Buddhas appointed to govern the Earth in this Round. 

They are the "Buddhas of Contemplation," and are all Anupadaka (parentless),
i.e., self-born of divine essence. 

The exoteric teaching which says that every Dhyani-Buddha has the faculty of
creating from himself, an equally celestial son — a Dhyani-Bodhisattva —
who, after the decease of the Manushi (human) Buddha, has to carry out the
work of the latter, rests on the fact that owing to the highest initiation
performed by one overshadowed by the "Spirit of Buddha" — (who is credited
by the Orientalists with having created the five Dhyani-Buddhas!), — a
candidate becomes virtually a Bodhisattva, created such by the High
Initiator. 

(c) Fohat, being one of the most, if not the most important character in
esoteric Cosmogony, should be minutely described. As in the oldest Grecian
Cosmogony, differing widely from the later mythology, Eros is the third
person in the primeval trinity: Chaos, Gaea, Eros: answering to the
Kabalistic En-Soph (for Chaos is SPACE, Caino , "void") the Boundless ALL,
Shekinah and the Ancient of Days, or the Holy Ghost; so Fohat is one thing
in the yet unmanifested Universe and another in the phenomenal and Cosmic
World. In the latter, he is that Occult, electric, vital power, which, under
the Will of the Creative Logos, unites and brings together all forms, giving
them the first impulse which becomes in time law. 

But in the unmanifested Universe, Fohat is no more this, than Eros is the
later brilliant winged Cupid, or LOVE. Fohat has naught to do with Kosmos
yet, since Kosmos is not born, and the gods still sleep in the bosom of
"Father-Mother." 

He is an abstract philosophical idea. He produces nothing yet by himself; he
is simply that potential creative power in virtue of whose action the
NOUMENON of all future phenomena divides, so to speak, but to reunite in a
mystic supersensuous act, and emit the creative ray. [ see S D II 176 :
"Desire first arose in IT..."] 

When the "Divine Son" breaks forth, then Fohat becomes the propelling force,
the active Power which causes the ONE to become TWO and THREE — on the
Cosmic plane of manifestation. The triple One differentiates into the many,
and then Fohat is transformed into that force which brings together the
elemental atoms and makes them aggregate and combine. We find an echo of
this primeval teaching in early Greek mythology. Erebos and Nux are born out
of Chaos, and, under the action of Eros, give birth in their turn to Æther
and Hemera, the light of the superior and the light of the inferior or
terrestrial regions. Darkness generates light. 

See in the Purânas Brahma's "Will" or desire to create; and in the
Phoenician Cosmogony of Sanchoniathon the doctrine that Desire, povqo" , is
the principle of creation. 

Fohat is closely related to the "ONE LIFE." From the Unknown One, the
Infinite TOTALITY, the manifested ONE, or the periodical, Manvantaric Deity,
emanates; and this is the Universal Mind, which, separated from its
Fountain-Source, is the Demiurgos or the creative Logos of the Western
Kabalists, and the four-faced Brahmâ of the Hindu religion. 

In its totality, viewed from the standpoint of manifested Divine Thought in
the esoteric doctrine, it represents the Hosts of the higher creative Dhyan
Chohans. 

Simultaneously with the evolution of the Universal Mind, the concealed
Wisdom of Adi-Buddha — the One Supreme and eternal — manifests itself as
Avalokiteswara (or manifested Iswara), which is the Osiris of the Egyptians,
the Ahura-Mazda of the Zoroastrians, the Heavenly Man of the Hermetic
philosopher, the Logos of the Platonists, and the Atman of the Vedantins.* 

By the action of the manifested Wisdom, or Mahat, represented by these
innumerable centres of spiritual Energy in the Kosmos, the reflection of the
Universal Mind, which is Cosmic Ideation and the intellectual Force
accompanying such ideation, becomes objectively the Fohat of the Buddhist
esoteric philosopher. Fohat, running along the seven principles of AKASA,
acts upon manifested substance or the One Element, as declared above, and by
differentiating it into various centres of Energy, sets in motion the law of
Cosmic Evolution, which, in obedience to the Ideation of the Universal Mind,
brings into existence all the various states of being in the manifested
Solar System. [ see S D I 570-575] 

The Solar System, brought into existence by these agencies, consists of
Seven Principles, like everything else within these centres. 

Such is the teaching of the trans-Himalayan Esotericism. Every philosophy,
however, has its own way of dividing these principles. 
 
[* Mr. Subba Row seems to identify him with, and to call him, the LOGOS.
(See his four lectures on the "Bhagavadgita" in the Theosophist.) ]

Fohat, then, is the personified electric vital power, the transcendental
binding Unity of all Cosmic Energies, on the unseen as on the manifested
planes, the action of which resembles — on an immense scale — that of a
living Force created by WILL, in those phenomena where the seemingly
subjective acts on the seemingly objective and propels it to action. Fohat
is not only the living Symbol and Container of that Force, but is looked
upon by the Occultists as an Entity — the forces he acts upon being cosmic,
human and terrestrial, and exercising their influence on all those planes
respectively. 

On the earthly plane his influence is felt in the magnetic and active force
generated by the strong desire of the magnetizer. On the Cosmic, it is
present in the constructive power that carries out, in the formation of
things — from the planetary system down to the glow-worm and simple daisy—
the plan in the mind of nature, or in the Divine Thought, with regard to the
development and growth of that special thing. 

He is, metaphysically, the objectivised thought of the gods; the "Word made
flesh," on a lower scale, and the messenger of Cosmic and human ideations:
the active force in Universal Life. In his secondary aspect, Fohat is the
Solar Energy, the electric vital fluid,* and the preserving fourth ”
principle, the animal Soul of Nature, so to say, or—Electricity. In India,
Fohat is connected with Vishnu and Surya in the early character of the
(first) God; for Vishnu is not a high god in the Rig Veda. The name Vishnu
is from the root vish, "to pervade," and Fohat is called the "Pervader" and
the Manufacturer, because he shapes the atoms from crude material.* In the
sacred texts of the Rig Veda, Vishnu, also, is "a manifestation of the Solar
Energy," and he is described as striding through the Seven regions of the
Universe in three steps, the Vedic God having little in common with the
Vishnu of later times. Therefore the two are identical in this particular
feature, and one is the copy of the other. 

The "three and seven" strides refer to the Seven spheres inhabited by man,
of the esoteric Doctrine, as well as to the Seven regions of the Earth.
Notwithstanding the frequent objections made by would-be Orientalists, the
Seven Worlds or spheres of our planetary chain are distinctly referred to in
the exoteric Hindu scriptures. 

But how strangely all these numbers are connected with like numbers in other
Cosmogonies and with their symbols, can be seen from comparisons and
parallelisms made by students of old religions. The "three strides of
Vishnu" through the "seven regions of the Universe," of the Rig Veda, have
been variously explained by commentators as meaning "fire, lightning and the
Sun" cosmically; and as having been taken in the Earth, the atmosphere, and
the sky; also as the "three steps" of the dwarf (Vishnu's incarnation),
though more philosophically — and in the astronomical sense, very correctly
— they are explained by Aurnavabha as being the various positions of the
sun, rising, noon, and setting. 

Esoteric philosophy alone explains it clearly, and the Zohar laid it down
very philosophically and comprehensively. It is said and plainly
demonstrated therein that in the beginning the Elohim (Elhim) were called
Echod, "one," or the "Deity is one in many," a very simple idea in a
pantheistic conception (in its philosophical sense, of course). Then came
the change, "Jehovah is Elohim," thus unifying the multiplicity and taking
the first step towards Monotheism. Now to the query, "How is Jehovah
Elohim?" the answer is, "By three Steps" from below. "
S D I 109 -12

----------------------------------------------

May be this explains my views, and in any case I thank you,


Dallas

------------------------------------------------------
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald 
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 2:10 PM
To: 
Subject: RE: Jerry HE: Does GdP actually teach this view given by Frank?

<< 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. >>



Dear Dallas, 


the above is a clear example of your tradition, the ULT's, 
worldview. I do not agree that Mahat is an attribute of the Absolute. And I
perceive you using caps in an obvious attempt of reification which
indicates to me that you are using word without an understanding of what
they refer to. Mahat is a word that refers to something, called its
referent. The referent here is not a god, not a being at all. It is a
collective cosmic consciousnesses, and one that is entirely karmic because
it was developed in past manvantaras. HPB's capping of Mahat was for the
purpose of NOT reifying it.


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

According to my own lineage or tradition, and the Estoeric Traaidtion of
HPB as I understand it, maya is the primal false or illusive appearance of
a subject that is separated from an object. Such a separation is an
illusion and thus the term maya, which translates as illusion. Your putting
it into all caps is a refication. Similar with Universe, which when capped
seems to reify it into a single thing which it is not.


<< 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. >>

In order to disperse maya, we have to transcend all seven principles. The
basic principles of atma and buddhi create the illusion of a Higher Self,
and this Higher Self is still separate from the nirvanic bliss around it,
and so maya still exists.


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. 

Buddhists use the term 'mental continuum' rather than monad because it is
too easy to reify monad. Using monad with caps, for example, was
Blavatsky's way of showing that it is NOT a reficiation, and yet her
students persist in reifying it anyway. My linage or tradition uses the
term monad(s) while recognizing that it is not a reification. Monads,
Mahat, the seven principles, and so on; none of these things are permanent.
All are in evolutionary change, and so cannot be permanent except in terms
of streams or continuums.


DTB	AN INTERESTING POINT -- sounds like the "SUTRATMA" or
"thread-soul." [ Key, pp 163-9]


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. >>

The notion that the universe radiated or emanated from the absolute is
based on a false assumption. The laws of any one universe are "universal"
only to that particular universe and to no other. Laws per se are not
compassionate nor do they lack compassion. "Compassionate laws" is a
projection. 


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. 


According to HPB, humanity is now at its adolescent stage, so we still have
a way to go to reach a collective maturity. 


<< 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
? 


Both of your "unless's" are true.


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


Magic is the ability ot make consciously directed changes in ourselves or
in our world, and we can do so only because none of it is permanent and
everything changes anyway. What we do, is to consciously direct natural
changes to take place according to our will.


DTB
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. 


GS
Ah, if I have created within you a desire to find permanence, then I have
done something truly valuable. Permanence is a relative thing, and it seems
like each time we find it, it fades further from us. Relative to the
physical, the astral seems permanent. Relative to the astral, the mental
seems permanent, and so on up the planes.

The counterpart to maya is the union of self and not-self, or living being
and world. There is, in fact, no real separation between a living being and
its environment. The appearance of such a separation is maya. The
disappearance of such a separation is the Monad. The corresponding mental
state is a transcendence of maya, and this occus in what the west calls a
mystical experience and what the east calls yogic meditative equipoise. 


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. 


GS
OK. In Buddhism we would say that our normal field of action assumes a self
that is separate and independent from its enviorment. The belief in a
unitary self leads to our grasping after it and to a desire to protect and
preserve it at all costs, even at the cost of other selves, and this is how
karma gets started.
  

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. >>

Agreed. Visiting the planes and communicating with the denizens there is
one thing, and spiritual insight is another. Spiritual insight can be
obtained by realizing that matter and spirit are two aspects of the very
same thing, and that every physical object around us has its very own
spiritual conterpart, an emptiness of permanence, associated with it.
Insight comes when spiritality is realized as the lack of permanance, not
permanence itself. It is the lack of permanence in physical objects,
including the bodies of living beings, that allows them to change, and to
evolve over time.


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.

Occultism and mgic require us to put aside the ego or self, lest they
become inflated. I have seen the effects of ego-inflation in many young
would-be magicians and occultists and it is not a pretty sight.
 

DTB
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.

GS
Rather than "conquest" how about "conscious control?" From my own
experience, I do not believe that progress is possible so long as we
maintain a friend vs foe relationaship with our lower self. We are not
trying to eliminate our skandhas so much as trying to purify them. The foe
here is the belief in a self that is separate from the world around it. Our
"enemies" are hatred, jealousy, pride, and ignorance.
 
DTB
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." 

GS
OK, but do not reify this "higher self" because it is not separate from its
enviroment either.

DTB
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. 

In a sense, there is one consciousness and many ways to focus it. We can
focus our consciousness on each plane if we want to, and we daily focus in
the waking, dream, and sleep states. 

GS
Here is what Tzongkhapa says:

"Therefore, one should not be mistaken by thinking that the human being who
constructs the thought "I am" and the self that is the basis of that
thought are one and mutually inclusive. One must know that the human Being
[concerned] is only an instance of that self [i.e., the I generality]."

Taongkhapa taught that we each have a mere I or general I and that this
takes on roles or instances as we go through life. This teaching is similar
to my own I-Not-I Monad where the I is the paramatman that takes on
multiiple identities on the lower planes.


DTB
"Now that which I have called consciousness is Being. The ancient
division was: Sat, or Being; 	


Sat equates to what today we call presence.

|
Chit, or Consciousness, Mind;  


Sit is nondual consciousness, the consciousness that is associated with
paramatman. It is pure consciousness that has no object, and no focus. When
consciousnesss focuses on an object, then duality is created.


These together are called Sat-chit-ananda. 


GS
These are the charactersitics of paramatman, presence, awareness or clarity,
and bliss.


DTB
"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.


GS
Consciousness per se can be nondual or dual. Nondual consciousness is what
today is called awareness or clarity. When consciousness focuses on an
object then we have the Witness or Spectator which is a dualistic
consicousness. It is this very act of focusing on an object, when nondual
consciousness falls into duality, that creates maya.

  
Jerry S.


---------------------------------

many thanks

Dal