Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00412)

Rich:

>Jerry,

>I will do my best to respond to your last two insulting and personally
>aggressive posts, in which you call my beliefs "ridiculous," and degrade me,
>saying "If you had been reading my postings with manas instead of kama." I
>don't understand your hostility and anger at my posts, I am surprised and
>hurt by it. I guess we all take our lumps in the Work?
>Regarding planes and Be-ness,

The sudden taking off of 'theos-l', its turning into a dynamic center of
discussion, has motivated many of us to be more interested and involved in
it. With Jerry, using Compuserve, the dropping of the per-message fee may
have further encouraged him to write more.

With both you, Jerry, and myself, among others, we have very definite ideas
that we would like to communicate. There is not always agreement. Over time,
we will soften the harsh edges to our communications and deal with the
disagreement better. This happens with all of us. JRC and I, for instance,
have been recently sandpapering ourselves and may come off less abrasive in
the future.

We have a useful learning experience in these discussions, where we can
refine our writing and communication skills, which can later be put to
use in articles, books, and other forms of writing. I think that we can
do this respectfully, and not end up either being overly defensive or
offensive. Our intentions are good, but sometimes quick anger clouds our
words and the intended effect of our words is lost.

>> Rich:< The souls do not have individual existence at
>> the end of a manvantara, but merge into the great One
>> Life, which does not exist at all, on any plane or
>> grade, let alone sub-planes. It is Be-ness, behind
>> all existence.>

>Jerry S.:
>> BTW, Rich, Beness as defined by HPB does
>> exist and it does so on the first plane - that of
>> divinity. What do you think the first (highest)
>> cosmic plane is? Your statements are so terribly
>> dualistic and your logic is so confounded that I
>> can't really say more.

Jerry: "so terribly dualistic" and "logic is so confounded" is rather
strong language for a discussion of one of the holiest of things.

I would use "be-ness" in two senses. In one regard, it is the perception
of the pure quality of existing, without regard to any sense of other
beings. We experience the essential "flavor" of existing in a universe or
world, its essential swabhava. This is equalvant to Atman or the atmic
consciousness, and could be called the first plane of consciousness.

In a second sense, "be-ness" could be considered the essence of being,
apart from any form of existence. In this case, we are talking about
an attribute of consciousness while non-existing, non-manifest, above
and beyond the manifest universe. An attempt to define some of the
qualities and nature of the unmanifest nature of things is undertaken
by Purucker, and is described as three planes above the seven, or five
unmanifest globes above the seven that are manifest, making a twelvefold
scheme -- the unmanifest above the manifest.

In the unmanifest, "be-ness" could be considered the essential nature or
quality of being, above and beyond our having come into any form of
existence.

This is a difficult topic, and requires much to be said to make it clear,
and I don't thing we'll be able to do more than talk around it.

>Well, what does HPB say about Be-ness in the S.D.? She seems to say that
>Be-ness does NOT exist, on any plane, as we find on page 14 of the S.D. Vol. 1:

>This is the
>"This Infinite and Eternal Cause--dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and
>"Unknowable" of current European philosophy--is the rootless root of "all
>that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes
>and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is
>"Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit SAT), and is beyond all thought or
>speculation."

This is going a bit deeper than the "be-ness" that is an aspect of our
consciousness and part of the experience of life. The unknowable ultimate
would be, from my thinking, the highest of our principles of consciousness,
when considering the twelvefold scheme, or as above the principles of
consciousness in the sevenfold scheme.

To understand or get an appreciation for it, though, we'll have to use
words that carry a sense of respect for its Mystery, a sense of majesty,
awe, and feeling of the divine and holy nature that it represents.

>If Be-ness is out of all relation to manifested Being, how can it form the
>first plane?

There are unconditioned qualities or virtures or absolutes. They act behind
all that is, but do not particularly relate to a specific world or universe
and direct things. Absolute time, for instance, does not itself become
conditioned time in a particular world. Absolute duration does not become
this or that particular manvantara. But conditioned time, with finite limits
and attributes does participate in a particular universe. And I would
suggest that there is "conditioned be-ness", as well as "unconditioned be-ness",
and the former does participate as the highest or guiding principle of
consciousness in a particular world scheme.

>Perhaps this can be explained to me, for indeed I am a relative
>newcomer compared to many I'm sure. If I am confused, I should be set
>straight, rather than insulted, no? Insults won't help clear up my
>confusion, if such it is.

The best way to deal with perceived insults is to act as if they didn't
happen. A response to them makes the other person defensive. Ignoring them
and going on in a friendly manner allows them to quickly be forgotten.
We're fortunate that we aren't in the position of having to fend attacks
on a on-going basis, like Paul Johnson in defense of his books. We can
usually anticipate a hostile reaction coming our way, because we've just
done or said something that is controversial to others.

>Finally, I have never met Eldon, and he associates with a different "wing" of
>the movement than I do, but I find his posts clear, insightful, and right on
>track.

Some would say that is because we tend to think along similar lines, and
it's not that I have a special claim on writing skills or an inner track
to the deeper truths.

What I've found is that the more I write, the better I get at writing.
And the more that I attempt to share Theosophy, the more that I have to
share. This is something that we all can do. And with practice, we can
write without the rough edges, we can write in a manner that shares more
of the heart and spirit of what we would share, and become of greater
benefit to others with the words that we use.

-- Eldon