Theos-Talk Archives (April 1999 Message tl00014)

April 10th

But for what purpose should we debate over "finalities" such as
"Enlightenment ?"  Do we not wake up each morning to a "new day
?"  Is that not an fresh enlightenment as the sun rises over a
new horizon for us ?

Are not definitions forever deceptive in themselves ?  There are
always variations.

Of what use is it to adopt one view and pit it against others.
Buddhism, of all the systems that are exoteric is perhaps the one
that is the most inclusive and encouraging of individual progress
and self-reform.

In every age that we may review there have been successes/
Gautama the Buddha has been recognized as the latest success in a
long line of Great Souls -- Buddhas who have mastered
"all-Knowingness" in our terms and concepts of limit.  But our
terms are far from "universal."

As a culmination of many lives of work and purification, just
like Gautama the Buddha did, there is always a final "life-time"
in which ENLIGHTENMENT occurs.  But, it is the result of all the
lives that went before it. [ see the JATAKA TALES ]

Consider the Theosophical picture of evolution:  The ONE MONAD
(as also that of any one of its innumerable "rays" ) GYRATES OVER
AN INCREDIBLE PERIOD OF TIME  in the evolutionary process, during
which it experiences all those aspects of differentiation,
physical, psychic and intellectual (or "spiritual") which that
differentiation provides, and finally achieves that
"ALL-KNOWINGNESS" which is the apotheosis of WISDOM -- or actual
BUDDHA-HOOD for that particular "school."

It is a "finality" which is not just a "graduation or a
commencement," but an achievement in this type and kind of matter
existence.  From there on the work rebegins and proceeds in
dimensions which we still have to gain some cognizance of --
although we have some anticipatory suspicions of the enormity of
the task that stretches out through the "infinity of time" that
lies always before us all.

"As we advance, the Goal recedes."  This is the one expression of
ever-living that we can all treasure.  Anyone who labors to
achieve a "resting-place or time" is only deluding themselves
into a "finality trap."  Eternity and immortality of the Egoic
Monad that we all are, implies continued effort and work, not
taking a rest -- and of what true, intrinsic value would such a
"rest" be ?  Why do we take rest-periods even now during our
daily work, sleep at night, rest on week-ends ?  It is change of
activity, not complete and utter quiescence !  How can anyone
view:  "DOING NOTHING" AS A FAVOR TO BE CONFERRED FOR WISDOM?

How is it possible, in dealing with these metaphysical concepts,
these ultimates, to put our present (embodied mind) weak and
limited concepts of "static finality on them ?  It merely show
our own limitations in thought, our adherence to 'tamasic'
materiality.

Fortunately there are three "gunas" or qualities from which
manifested Nature is derived:  'sattva' -- truth, spiritual
wisdom, purity;  'rajas' -- activity, desire, progress, work;
and, 'tamas' -- inertia, ignorance, materiality, and spiritual
darkness.  These three are always equipoised in manifestation,
and are viewed uniformly by the 4th factor the IMPERISHABLE
SPIRIT which is in the body.  The whole of the BHAGAVAD GITA, as
well as,  the whole Buddhistic philosophy (regardless of any of
its particular schools) is a commentary on these three aspects of
Nature in conjoined evolution.  The ONE SPIRIT illuminates
everybody BY REASON OF ITS WISDOM AND PURITY.  Hence we have
another reason for considering Brotherhood, Compassion, and well
regulated activity.

I hope this is of some help

Dallas

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

              Dallas TenBroeck
               dalval@nwc.net

-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com
> [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of
> LeonMaurer@aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 2:27 AM
> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
> Subject: Re: RE: Theos-World Responses to Leon

Dear Jerry,

>>...your original arguments to defend the concept of
enlightenment in
>> one lifetime, regardless of the practices of previous
lifetimes, as
>> being the "only" possibility, and that all other views are
wrong-...
>>
> Dear Leon, if you want to denigrate what I say, that is your
> right, but please repeat what I said properly. I never said
> anything like "regardless of the practices of previous
lifetimes" which
> would be impossible.

In my dictionary the word denigrate means. "To attack the
character or
reputation of; speak ill of; defame or, to disparage; belittle."
What kind
of paranoia is it that assumes my statement disagreeing with what
I thought
you said or implied, is an attack on you personally?  Must you
always turn
every disagreement with your self acknowledged "wild" statements
of supposed
facts into a personal attack on your character?  Or, is that just
a
projection of your own methods of argument?

Actually, I still maintain your concept of "enlightenment in one
lifetime" is
dead wrong...  Since, if enlightenment takes "practices of
previous
lifetimes", as you now apparently admit, then, it's not really
"enlightenment
in ONE lifetime", is it?

LHM

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.