Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00214)

Paul:

[writing to Coherence]

>Perhaps these opposing views are best reconciled by looking at
>them on different levels.  Greg, you are right at a *spiritual*
>level; to think of oneself as *spiritually* independent is
>quite wrong, because at that level we are all one, or should
>try to be.  But Alexis is right at a *mental* level-- we should
>all think independently and not allow group pressures to mould
>our convictions.

Or perhaps we have both individualism and unity *at all levels*.
Physically we are individual beings, and would die if we don't
care for ourselves. But we are interdependent; we depend upon
others for our existence. We cannot eat without something to be
our food, write without someone to make pens and paper, have
a conversation without someone to talk to, watch a sunset without
a sun to be setting.

At higher levels, we have our thoughts, but where do they end
and the thoughts of another begin? Our value as thinkers
depends upon our original thought and not our ability to
passively reflect the thoughts of others. Yet higher, we can
have an experience of oneness, emersion, unity, nirvana, yet
even here it is *our* experience of it, out of which we may
later return to manifest existence.

Essentially we are eternal, perfect, utterly individual, each
a Monad with its own absolutely unique nature. But in
manifestation, in existence, there is no ego, soul, or body
to look to and say "this is me, this is my enduring self."
The self that endures is *non-existing*, it transcends the
finite nature and limitations of any evolutionary experience
of life.

Our inner nature is utterly individual, yet at its core,
enshrouded in Mystery, is a form of unity out of which all
the Monads arise.

In the manifest worlds, the nature of the game is co-dependence.
We exist because of being in interaction with others, with
beings already in existence. Our nature is defined by a
spider web of karma, a network of interconnections with others
in life. We can assert our individualism, but who and what
we are is defined in relationship with others.

As finite, imperfect, mortal, living beings, we sometimes
forget our interdependence, forgetting that we are nothing
except in our relationships with the rest of living things.
(This interdependence and direct relatedness is defined in
the buddhic principle.)

This forgetting is epitomized by the illusion that we are
distinct, separate beings, the maya produced by the ego-creating
action of the mind. When this action ceases, we see ourselves
for what we are: a living hub of relationships, a nexus
where others are tied together in and through us. (This
ego-creating activity arises in the manasic principle, except
when closely allied with Buddhi.)

What are we, then, individuals or a unity? Both. Our
individual nature is eternal, perfect, and cannot be taken
away from us; it is our essential nature as Monads. In life,
we exist because we choose to, and exert our will to manifest
ourselves. Yet at the same time, our perfect nature as Monads
is rooted in the same identical Unknowable Root, a form of
unity. And in life, our existence not only depends upon others,
but it defined in terms of the relationships that we've made.
We only allow ourselves the illusion of a separate, independent
self in the world until Manas is sufficiently allied with
Buddhi to be permeated with a continual awareness of the
*essential relatedness* of things.

I don't think we need to say that everything is independent,
or everything is independent, or that all is independent on
the lower planes and dependent on the higher. I'd rather
put it thus: everything is interdependent for its existence
and defined by that dependence, yet uniquely individual and
responsible for creative self-expression based upon that
individuality.

-- Eldon