Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00170)

>>If the unacknoweledged appropriations appear damaging, what appears even
worse is that "these appropriations sometimes are MADE TO APPEAR as
emanating from a hidden or occult source like Tibetan Buddhist Tantras."
Why would Blavatsky attribute appropriated material from Schlagintweit's
book  to a hidden or occult source?>>

It is one thing to find examples of apparent plagarism, and
quite another to jump to the conclusion that it was deliberate.
I found that I had done much the same thing in my own PhD
dissertation. I included some quotes without references, with
the expectation that I would add the references later -- and
then I completely forgot.  I had my hands slapped by the
university, which picked up on it when they read the draft.
We are all human after all, and she admitted to making
mistakes. I have to give her the benefit
of any doubt on this, because she wrote so much and read so
much, it is humanly impossible to keep it all completely
straight.

Her attribution, IMHO, was probably due to the fact that
the ideas were indeed from some hidden source, and when she
recalled the ideas, her mind probably formed them in words
that were already in her memory but without her conscious
recollection. I do not believe that she ever deliberately
plagarized, simply because she had no real need to do so.

Jerry S.

[Jerry]
>> No, the problem of origins and evolution is in the idea
>> of a beginning.
[Katinka]
>Is it? Are you then of the opinion that the whole thing is
>a giant machine that after it started just kept on going
>and acidentally created man?

There is no "started."  The whole point that I am trying
to make here is that there is no beginning or end. If
time is linear, as it appears to us to be, then it seems
logical to assume that it all had to begin at some point.
It logically follows, in that case, that it must someday
all end.  But this is an illusion.

Jerry S.

>>Why, if finding the First Cause is a logical necessity,
do you argue it cannot be found?
Thanks, Randy>>

Good question. I can only say that any First Cause is
a lot like the Zen koan of one's Original Face. Why can't
it be found? Because we are using logic and reason to
find something that transcends logic and reason.

Jerry S.

>>Does theosophy espouse physical evolution in the
neo-Darwinian sense?  If so, what is the evidence used
to support this?
Thanks, Randy>>

Yes and no.  Because spirit evolves, so mind and
emotions and physical objects, because the lower
expresses the higher. Blavatsky's evolution model
is given in some detail in the Secret Doctrine. She
does not agree with survival of the fittest, but I'll
bet that she would nod her head to the current
theory of Margulis having to do with symbiosis
and cooperation as well as Lovecock's Gaia hypothesis.

Jerry S.

[Dallas] >>To me "spiritual evolution" means the
seeking for and application of "BROTHERHOOD"
in all aspects of life. >>

To me, brotherhood is an expression of spirit,
which itself needs no evolution. Would you say
that spirit evolves, or would you say rather
that people evolve by expressing more spirituality
in their lives?  Does matter evolve? Or is it
rather that material forms/aggragates evolve?

Jerry S.

[Grigor]
>>This is a compromise view sometimes found in Nyingmapa
circles combining Atiyoga with Mahayoga (or the Anuttara
of new schools) or combining sudden and gradual paths.
It should not be confused with the sudden view strictly
speaking.<<

OK, but I was coming at it from the point of view of Zen,
which is more familiar to everyone.  The Zen idea is that
a student studies until "ready" and then just one word
or action from the Master will send him/her over the edge.
According to Zen, study itself is not enough for satori,
but it is a type of preparation.

<<This combined approach arises because some need a
prerequisite training stage.  But all such training, if
unenlightened (which it is), still has the problems of
unenlightenment, so to speak.  That is,
unenlightenment is malfunction, period.  Training
may lessen the severity of unenlightened malfunctioning
but it is still fundamentally malfunctioning just as a disease
can have milder symptoms in some yet they are still
infected.>>

Agreed.

>>The pure sudden path view says there is no need for
preliminary training.  Rather, training comes after
basic enlightenment.>>

This falls in line with a lot of magic schools which
use soma or other psychodelic to start things going.

>>In essence, gradual path says training comes first, then,
enlightenment.  By contrast, sudden path, in its pure form,
says enlightenment comes first, and then, enlightenment
training or practice.>>

My take is that both can be right -- it depends on
the individual.

>>Even in Zen, the practice of zazen (samadhi) is to
realize satori.  But, satori or enlightenment experience
is not complete Buddhahood.  After one finds satori,
one has to practice it dynamically in situations, and
this practicing of satori after it has been reached is
kensho. >>

Agreed. I found this to be true in my own experience.

>>In Dzog chen, the best or luckiest way is the
direct transmission of the enlightened state
from the mind of the master to the mind of the
student, who then, subsequently,
practices that state under the improvising
conditions of life as on-going drama.
If that is not possible, then something like
the practice of Zazen (samadhi) is done.
But when the pure state of mind is found,
THEN begins the training in being that
state of mind in all conditions.
Grigor>>

Agreed. And thanks for the info.

[Dallas]
>.Is there a "Designer?"  Does it not take a MIND to do the
memorizing of designs, or their imagining (out of the memory of
earlier manifestation periods) , planning (out of the substance
of thought) and creation (out of the grossness of
electro-magnetic matter) ?>>

You are expressing the typical human desire for a parental
prototype: a cosmic father figure or mother figure. No, there
does not need to be a Mind in the sense of a self-conscious
entity or God (I am not saying that there is none, but simply
that one is not necessary).  Jung once said that the emotionally charged
image is the basic building block of the unconscious.
If we simply equate "emotionally charged image" with "skandha" or
"shishta" then there is no real need for a Creator. Each
round of creation is the effect of preceding causes, alias
karma in the form of emotionally charged images or shistas.

Jerry S.

<<We may observe that Manas, the mind is independent of either
Spirit or Matter yet it sees their interaction and is able to
build from that perception: >>

Dallas, it is my observation that mind is very much dependent on
both matter and spirit.

Jerry S.

>>Of what value is "Nirvana?"

Buddha defined samsara as suffering, and nirvana as an end to suffering. I
think that putting an end to suffering has immense
value.

>>REINCARNATION
1.  Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the
Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal.  If that is
denied, then it is useless to proceed.  It is agreed that the
"embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the
body at death.>>

I do not believe that the human mind (higher or lower)is either
immortal or eternal.  Nevertheless, I believe in reincarnation.

>>2.  However there are many accounts of Seances and other
experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal
soul/mind at least for a while after physical death.  If those
are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still
"sub judice.">>

I have seen "dead" people in my dreams.

>>3. NDEs (Accounts of NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES) and reports of
children and adults who remember "past lives" abound.  Are these
to be discarded or is the matter to be held "sub judice?">>

I had an NDE myself.  However, medical science is offering
many alternative physical explanations.

>>4. Most religions and philosophies speak of reincarnation
although they may not (like Theosophy) give an extensive
rationale for consideration.<<

Western religions do not. You only find reincarnation in
the East.  Reincarnation is something that simply has to
be accepted on belief -- there will never be any proof
for or against.  Personally, I find myself reincarnating
each second, but I can't prove it.

>>What is the CAUSE for the division between SPIRIT
and MULAPRAKRITI (primordial, or ROOT-MATTER) .  Why is the MONAD
formed?  Why does the UNIVERSE come into existence?  IS THAT
NECESSARY?>>

Dallas, please allow me to answer your questions.  The CAUSE
is our own ignorance.  The MONAD is not formed, never was
formed, and never will be formed.  The UNIVERSE never "came
into existence" nor will it ever "go out of existence"
because existence and non-existence always go together.
And yes, it is NECESSARY.  Hope this helps.

Jerry S.