Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Self-Consciousness

Expand Messages
  • dalval14@earthlink.net
    Saturday, July 14, 2001 Dear Friends: I must be saying something that does not ring correctly to Jerry. I do not think the language we use differs all that
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 14, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Saturday, July 14, 2001

      Dear Friends:

      I must be saying something that does not ring correctly to Jerry.
      I do not think the language we use differs all that much.

      When I write I try to make use of the principles I have learned
      (and tested) that emanate from the theosophical view of our
      world, universe, and the possible goal we are all working
      towards.

      I am sure the Theosophical views concerning the ABSOLUTE eternal
      and indescribable background of all is comprehensible. It exists
      whether there is manifestation of not. In the event of the
      cycles that cause MANIFESTATION while the CAUSE may be forever
      reposing in the ABSOLUTE, the manifestation itself results in a
      duality: of the contrast of SPIRIT and MATTER.

      Implicit in this is the concept of LAW ( KARMA -- in its
      universal and eternal sense) as ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT MOTION. With
      manifestation finite TIME is implicit in all things that employ
      the limits of form to become patent and manifest, as "beings."

      Also implicit in this, is the concept of intelligence, purpose,
      order, cooperation interaction and the universally perceive
      coexistence of all beings. It is a harmonious diversity.

      If law works on a basis of cause, and cause demands forms through
      which to act, then starting with the least of these we may
      ascribe to them the common basis of a material form enshrining a
      living Ray of the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT.

      But, for this "Ray" of Spirit to work in and through Matter, a
      sensitive, intelligent and conscious medium is required. MIND in
      its UNIVERSAL ASPECT as MAHAT is posited.

      In The SECRET DOCTRINE H.P.Blavatsky puts these concepts and
      principles forward in the first 60 pages of the book. This
      includes the question of individual INTELLIGENCE ascribed to the
      "life-atoms," and of SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS ascribed to the HUMAN
      BEING.

      If Jerry desires the use of some other terms or some other basis,
      then may we have them.

      The MONAD is called the union of ATMA (Spirit - Purusha) and
      BUDDHI (or primordial matter - Mulaprakriti). The uniting
      principle that makes them intelligent and conscious is MIND.

      In one way it may be said that MIND is subordinate to either
      SPIRIT (Atma) or PRIMORDIAL MATTER (Buddhi). But without that
      quality which embodies the Karma of that MONAD and its FREE-WILL
      to act to choose, to decide, the MONAD per se is nothing

      In the link between Atma and Buddhi lies the understanding, the
      thinking, the recording and the anticipating qualities and
      functions of MANAS (Mind} as I see it.

      The MONAD in evolution then is the spiritual triad of
      ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS. The material vehicle or basis where in
      experience is reaped, and karma (from past decisions) is returned
      to the embodied entity . In itself the principle of Kama (desires
      and passions) represents the highest aspect of intelligence to be
      perceived in the form alone.

      That aspect of the MIND (Manas) which touches, approaches and
      mixes with Kama is called the LOWER MANAS.

      Lower Manas is a compound of desire and mind.

      But all this is carefully taught and explained by H.P.Blavatsky
      in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY.

      If this information is applied to what Jerry says then I believe
      the matter is resolved.

      The duality of the EGO in man revolves around the Higher Ego
      (Higher Manas) and the Lower Ego (Kama-Manas).

      It is the Lower manas that apprehends the existence of its
      Spiritual "Father" the Higher Ego. It is the Lower Manas that
      has to make the decision to purify itself of irrational lower
      inclinations and desires. It has to learn to accept the fact
      that the Laws of the Universe are impartial, implacable, and fair
      to all. Hence individualism in the Lower Manas has to be
      tailored to the existing cooperative and interactive condition.

      The individualism of FREE-WILL is always present in
      SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, but the consciousness active in the Lower
      Manas is self transformed into an exact mirror of the Higher.

      The VOICE OF THE SILENCE (HPB) teaches this if one reads it
      carefully.

      Best wishes,

      Dallas

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





      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bruce F. MacDonald [mailto:bmacdonald@...]
      Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:05 PM
      To: Theosophy Study List
      Subject: Re: Self-Consciousness

      Bruce: just a comment about a little discussion below:

      Dallas says:
      ><<<The purpose of living is to enable the MONAD ( ATMA-BUDDHI)
      to
      >attain SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS.

      Jerry replies:

      >Dallas, I sure hope that this kind of stuff isn't Theosophy, and
      I don't
      >know where you got this idea (I truly hope that HPB did not
      actually say
      >such a silly thing). I hate to tell you this, my friend, but my
      atma-buddhi
      >is ALREADY SELF-CONSCIOUS (and so is yours, your manas just
      doesn't know it
      >yet), and yet here I am, going round and round anyway. It may
      well be that
      >atma-buddhi gets self-conscious at some point by its
      reincarnating "egoic
      >ray" (although I don't believe this). But I would never tell
      people that
      >this is the "purpose of living" inasmuch as this tells me that I
      no longer
      >have any purpose in life, which I don't find to be true.
      >
      >While Tzongkapa and other Middle Way folks totally reject
      self-consciousness
      >(without a self, how can there be self-consciousness?), the Mind
      Only and
      >Dzogchen folks do subscribe to it. So far, my experiences tell
      me that I am
      >self-conscious at ALL levels albeit the definition of "self"
      (i.e., my sense
      >of identity) changes with each level/plane. I would love to know
      how
      >something that is rejected as having no true existence at all by
      many
      >Tibetan Buddhists, including HH the Dalai Lama, can be "the
      purpose of
      >living" for a Theosophist? Interesting, isn't it?



      Bruce: First, as I understand it, HPB teaches that Atma is
      present in
      everything, mineral, plant, animal, etc. However, Atma in
      mineral is not
      "aware" of its "rockness" in any sense, it just IS. However, as
      Atma is
      incarnated in all the levels of being over time, it begins to
      become
      "aware" in a different way than in the sense of just BEING Atma.


      Thus to use a metaphor I used in my last email, as the
      Atma, which
      is an "eternal pilgrim" proceeds from the One Inexpressible
      Source, it IS,
      but it is not aware of being. Somewhere on the path of evolution
      there
      comes a point of self-awareness (I believe the Sanskrit is
      AHAMKARA). From
      this point on the Atma/Buddhi moves from being "merely" a ray of
      the One,
      without any kind of self-awareness, to being an active expression
      of
      something more than just a passive Ray, to being an active and
      conscious
      participant in the process of spiritual evolution. The rock can
      hardly be
      held responsible for its Karma, but the self-conscious "Monad"
      can be held
      responsible and can learn and evolve consciously because of that
      self-awareness.


      Since we have all moved beyond the level of being rocks,
      I assume
      that we have developed some form of self-consciousness, and the
      fact of
      having this self-consciousness as actual experience, would seem
      to bring
      into doubt Tsongkapa's assertion that there is no self, no matter
      what kind
      of logic he chooses to employ.


      I take it that to say that every thing is Empty (Sunya)
      means not
      that nothing "exists" but that nothing has "inherent existence"
      which is to
      say "separate existence in and of itself," since all is actually
      One. To
      recognize Emptiness (Sunyata) is to recognize that there is no
      separation
      and that we have no "separate self" which stands over against
      other
      selves. That is not to say that in Sunyata there is no Self:
      rather, that
      in Sunyata there is no separation of Self from All that Is, even
      if in
      everyday life we continue to function as if there is some kind of
      separation.


      Peace, Bruce MacD




      ---
      You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
      dalval14@...
      List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
      To unsubscribe send a blank email to
      leave-theos-l-14759P@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.