Feb 15, 1995 01:24 PM
by Jerry Schueler
Keith: "So evil is not real, it is only a limitation of our
consciousness at our particular stage of evolution."
I would say that any and all limitations to our consciousness
are, in fact, evil. When someone robs us, or beats us up, we
tend to think of that person as evil, or that kind of action or
behavior as evil. Actually, what is really evil is the fact that
we don't know why it happened to us. Perhaps if we had unlimited
knowledge, we would see that we needed to be robbed at that
particular time for some reason, or that the robber really needed
the money more than we did. Our big problem in life is
ignorance. Anyway, as a nondualist I believe that evil is as
real as goodness, and will last as long.
Keith: "When talking about sychronicity being acausal to the
senses, but caual on the occult planes..."
No one is talking about any such thing (I hope). Synchronicity
is acausal. Period. If an event is causal, regardless of plane
or inner knowledge or whatever, than it is not, by definition, a
synchronistic event. We seem to have a semantic problem here.
If a fact is unknown, then it is esoteric. Once it becomes
known, then the fact becomes exoteric, by definition. The same
is true with synchronicity. Events are only synchronistic if
they have no known cause and are meaningful to someone.
Keith: " Original sin, may not stand up to close scrutiny, but it
does provide motivation for seeking "salvation". The gnostic
fall also gives a justification that spirit was seduced into
matter, and provides gnosis as a "salvation".
The problem with religion is that is teaches us that we need to
be saved from something, and each denomination offers its own
path toward salvation. I like theosophy because it steers clear
of such things. What is it that we need to be saved from?
Eternity in Hell? Ourselves? The only thing that I want to be
saved from is my own ignorance. In one sense spirit was indeed
seduced into matter. But in another sense the "fall" was a
deliberate act of self-manifestation (just for the fun of it).
As I understand gnosis, or Knowledge, it is a salvation from
ignorance. Those who desire to be saved from matter (which is
the complement of spirit - the two being a syzygy as taught in
Gnosticism) are caught up in their own ignorance and obviously
need a good dose of gnosis.
Re E-W. I don't recall any of the new Tibetan writers today
criticizing E-W, but many have said that Sandup's translations
are outdated. This is offered for the main reason why new
translations are being published, for example. I agree that
HPB's teaching that once a human always a human, and that you
can't slip back, is against Buddhist doctrine - even H.H. talks
about wanting to be a fly in his next life. But as Eldon says,
Theosophy isn't Buddhism. So, I suppose this is one instance
where we can fault E-W (who was writing a Tibetan book), but not
HPB (who was teaching us theosophy). Personally, I am still
undecided, and have yet to be convinced that HPB is right on this
issue (perhaps someone can convince me?).
As another interesting aside, I have yet to see any of the
Tibetan writers mention anything close to HPB's Gupta Vidya Model
as she describes it in the SD. None have mentioned Root Races,
or Rounds, for example, let alone a planetary chain. E-W
mentions that Sandup acknowledged it as authentic Buddhism, but
other than that, no one else has ever written or spoken about it
(and there are a lot of Buddhist books around these days).
Tibetans don't even seem to emphasize seven very much - you will
usually find five rather than seven. The reason I bring this up,
is that her model is the reason why she claims once human always
human - because the "door" backwards into the animal kingdom
closed at the turn of this fourth Round. It is very hard for me
to believe that this is Buddhism, when no real Buddhists have
spoken or written of it. Here again is a good example of the
power of her model, which seems to be the primary framework or
structure upon which most of theosophy hangs (or falls).
ps. The fact that none mention it, don't mean that it ain't so.
Alexandra David-Neel studied and lived among Tibetans for many
years and wrote some of the very best esoteric Buddhist teachings
that I have yet read anywhere, and few Tibetans have confirmed
her stuff either (her descriptions of magic and ritual, heating
wet towels using "psychic heat" and so on have all been confirmed
as true. I refer here to the esoteric teachings on ego and the
"crowd of others" that she wrote about in SECRET ORAL TEACHINGS).
It is well known that Tibetan Lamas have maintained sets of oral
teachings ("ear-whispered") that are not allowed to be written
down. Perhaps HPB's model lies in that arena? We may never know.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application