Some Responses
Dec 03, 1999 12:51 PM
by Gerald Schueler
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF3DA6.45919EE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to make a few comments on the article WHAT I=20
OWE TO A BOOK by Captain P.G.B. Bowen in the latest issue
Of Theosophy World. First of all, let me say that I too
am a fan of G de Purucker.
>>Nirvana is the apotheosis of consciousness...It is=20
absorption into absoluteness, or attainment of absolute=20
self-consciousness.>>
Nirvana is spiritual consciousness, an "apotheosis" or=20
spiritualization. However, I don't see it as an absorption
into the Absolute. Dzog Chen views nirvana as the polar
opposite to samsara, and says that both are within maya.
With this in mind, we can say that samsara is the region
of planes below the Abyss, the lower four cosmic planes
of Blavatsky's model, while nirvana is the region above,
the three higher planes shown clearly in both CWL's and=20
Purucker's models. As far as I know, CWL is the only
Theosophical writer after HPB to have made this same=20
distinction. G de Purucker points out that nirvana
is a state of consciousness rather than a place, but
it could be argued that samadhi is the state of
consciousness when in nirvana. Anyway, the lowest
plane, the physical, is a "place" and none of the
others are a "place" anyway, so saying that nirvana
is a general term for the highest three cosmic planes
doesn't make it a "place" and doesn't conflict with
Purucker.
>>Now what does this "eternal, ceaseless motion" mean.=20
It cannot mean purposeless motion round and round a barren=20
circle, therefore it must mean (there is no alternative)=20
"eternal, ceaseless PROGRESS." ... "ceaseless, eternal=20
PROGRESS WHICH IS ABSOLUTENESS ITSELF." >>
Here, once again, is that same old business about
eternal progress and to call evolution a circle is
to say that it must be "barren" or meaningless. This
just ain't so. Yes, there is an alternative. However,
it goes beyond human logic -- which is what insists
on there being "progress" or continuous evolution.
The human mind has a problem with millions of years
of evolution, unless it can find a purpose to it that
it can understand and appreciate. Such as the idea of
"progress." The idea of evolutionary progress is
pure maya. All of this evolution and progress that we
are talking about takes place in samsara. Its all a=20
dream. Progress is an illusion. We are already perfect
and spiritual and complete.
Let me just quote from another essay in Theos World,=20
SPIRIT IN CRISIS: THE BOUNDLESS AND THE SELF=20
by H. Oosterink,
"Our life is a pilgrimage, our past extends into=20
infinity and there never was a time when we were not."=20
This quote calls the whole notion of evolution
And "progress" into serious question.
If we just use a little logic and common sense,
we would see that there can be no "evolution" in
any real sense if we have already been existing=20
for an infinity into the past (no beginning implies
a non-linear manifestation). The Theosophical
notion that we are slowly evolving in this=20
manvantara to obtain self-consciousness is pure=20
mayavic illusion in the sense that the spiritual=20
spark within each of us is already self-conscious.
Progress and evolution have a relative reality,
But not an absolute reality.
>>"Desire the PATH, not the end of the
Path." The goal is PROGRESS, not the state=20
of having progressed!>>
While I agree with the first sentence, I can't
agree with the second. The end of the path, so
to speak, is our Original Face, which is right
in front of us -- we already have it. Progress
and treading the path are not only desired, but
are really all we in samsara can do. DT Suzuki,
I think, once called this the Ultimate Joke --
that we tread an endless path only to discover
that the end was with us all the time and that the
path itself is an illusion.
>>One must have some COMPREHENSIVE view of THE=20
SECRET DOCTRINE before one can venture to criticize=20
a work like FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY.>>
This sound a lot like something Dallas would say,
and I find it very objectionable. Basically, because
only HPB and the Masters have such a comprehensive view,=20
this tells us that no one on Earth other than a Master
is qualified to criticize a book. Oh please... =20
>>it has revealed to me that there is in existence a=20
genuine Esoteric School in which the Spirit of the=20
Masters' teachings survives. Therefore I need no longer=20
be a wanderer in the Wilderness.>>
The " genuine Esoteric School" is the Brotherhood
of Compassion as defined by Purucker and all human
organizations are just that -- human organizations. If
we take the Theosophical "teachings" as given to us as=20
truth itself, then we will indeed be a wanderer in the=20
wilderness, no different than anyone else. Those who
think that written words are "truth" are the same
as those who mistake the finger pointing at the moon
for the moon itself -- an old Zen phrase that still
holds today.
Just some thoughts.
Jerry S.
Maureen writes,
<< OK, now my dilemna.... Subsequent postings are=20
leading me to believe the list may perhaps be more=20
a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher=20
ideals.>>
You are new, and we have discussed this same problem
ad nauseum on this list for several years. So, I will
try to respond as briefly as possible:
1. You can't have normal people discussing something
as important as their world view or belief system
without a lot of conflict and squabbles. Mostly this
comes from semantics problems inherent in a network=20
where we do not see or even know each other except
through our posts. But some is caused by legitimate=20
differences over interpretation, and we often simply=20
have to agree to disagree.
2. Theosophy teaches that the personal ego is an
illusion in agreement with Buddhism. Working with
others on a list such as this is an opportunity
to see how you can handle ego-bashing. Do you respond
with more ego-bashing in turn, or do you respond
with patience and compassion? Its all up to each
of us how to do it, but I have discovered that lists
such as this one present a serious challenge to the
ego, who usually likes to think itself "right" and
others "wrong." Those who have frail egos will
usually leave the list. Those who can laugh at
what life brings on, and who have teflon egos (a
desirable characteristic) will usually stick it out=20
and grow from it. =20
3. There is no "Theosophy" per se that we can
all agree with. HPB and other writer's works
are all subject to interpretation. Thus we on this
Theosophical list have yet to agree on what
Theosophy is, let alone how to promote it. This
has its advantages. For one thing, your interpretation
is just as good and valid as mine or anyone else's.
4. This list contains folks from newbies to very
advanced. It is difficult to discuss things that
will appeal to everyone. The newbies will not
understand and feel left out while the advanced
will become bored. The solution is to have lots
of threads running, and to jump in where you want
and to ignore those you don't care for.
<< How could it possibly matter at all if someone=20
gets their academic degree at 35??>>
It doesn't. I got my Masters at 49 and my two
PhDs only a few years ago (I am 57). Don't let=20
this kind of small-talk disarm you. Do
what I like to do, and simply ignore what you don't
like while chiming in with what you do like.
The truly wonderful aspect of Theosophy is that
there is no "guru" who knows it all, and that
it has a large umbrella to keep many of us in
out of the rain who otherwise would be at each
other's throats (so to speak...).
Hope this helps.
Jerry S.
Dallas writes:
<< You have to understand that students of=20
Theosophy are quite ordinary people who have=20
seized an aspect of truth that is now
working in and through their minds.>>
Speak for yourself, Dallas. :)
<< I mean books like THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by
Mme. Blavatsky, or THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by=20
Wm. Q. Judge., which we all ought to have=20
familiarized ourselves with. Then we could
talk about the principles laid out there, and=20
not waste so much time on "far-out" ideas and=20
wild opinions.>>
Dallas, the fact is that we have all doubtless
read and re-read these books. Judge himself
declared that Theosophy was like an ocean
being deep at the center and shallow at the
shores. IMHO both books you quote above are
discussions of the shoreline of Theosophy. They
are meant for newbies, and are excellent for
that purpose. They are, however, totally useless
(and downright misleading) for anyone who wants
to plumb the real depths, so to speak.
Personally, I have been in Theosophy for almost
40 years, and am no longer interested or
intrigued by the shallow waters that I studied
so many years ago. If this list degenerates to
discussions of Ocean and Key, then I will quit.
Jerry S.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF3DA6.45919EE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I would like to make a few comments on =
the article=20
WHAT I <BR>OWE TO A BOOK by Captain P.G.B. Bowen in the latest =
issue<BR>Of=20
Theosophy World. First of all, let me say that I too<BR>am a fan =
of G de=20
Purucker.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>>>Nirvana is the apotheosis =
of=20
consciousness...It is <BR>absorption into absoluteness, or attainment of =
absolute <BR>self-consciousness.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nirvana is spiritual consciousness, an =
"apotheosis"=20
or <BR>spiritualization. However, I don't see it as an =
absorption<BR>into=20
the Absolute. Dzog Chen views nirvana as the polar<BR>opposite to =
samsara, and=20
says that both are within maya.<BR>With this in mind, we can say that =
samsara is=20
the region<BR>of planes below the Abyss, the lower four cosmic =
planes<BR>of=20
Blavatsky's model, while nirvana is the region above,<BR>the three =
higher planes=20
shown clearly in both CWL's and <BR>Purucker's models. As far as I know, =
CWL is=20
the only<BR>Theosophical writer after HPB to have made this same=20
<BR>distinction. G de Purucker points out that nirvana<BR>is a =
state of=20
consciousness rather than a place, but<BR>it could be argued that =
samadhi is the=20
state of<BR>consciousness when in nirvana. Anyway, the lowest<BR>plane, =
the=20
physical, is a "place" and none of the<BR>others are a "place" anyway, =
so saying=20
that nirvana<BR>is a general term for the highest three cosmic =
planes<BR>doesn't=20
make it a "place" and doesn't conflict with<BR>Purucker.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>>Now what does this "eternal, =
ceaseless=20
motion" mean. <BR>It cannot mean purposeless motion round and round a =
barren=20
<BR>circle, therefore it must mean (there is no alternative) =
<BR>"eternal,=20
ceaseless PROGRESS." ... "ceaseless, eternal <BR>PROGRESS WHICH IS =
ABSOLUTENESS=20
ITSELF." >></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Here, once again, is that same old =
business=20
about<BR>eternal progress and to call evolution a circle is<BR>to say =
that it=20
must be "barren" or meaningless. This<BR>just ain't so. Yes, =
there=20
is an alternative. However,<BR>it goes beyond human logic -- which =
is what=20
insists<BR>on there being "progress" or continuous evolution.<BR>The =
human mind=20
has a problem with millions of years<BR>of evolution, unless it can find =
a=20
purpose to it that<BR>it can understand and appreciate. Such as the idea =
of<BR>"progress." The idea of evolutionary progress is<BR>pure =
maya. All=20
of this evolution and progress that we<BR>are talking about takes place =
in=20
samsara. Its all a <BR>dream. Progress is an illusion. We are already=20
perfect<BR>and spiritual and complete.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Let me just quote from another essay in =
Theos=20
World, <BR>SPIRIT IN CRISIS: THE BOUNDLESS AND THE SELF <BR>by H.=20
Oosterink,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Our life is a pilgrimage, our past =
extends into=20
<BR>infinity and there never was a time when we were not." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This quote calls the whole notion of=20
evolution<BR>And "progress" into serious question.<BR>If we just use a =
little=20
logic and common sense,<BR>we would see that there can be no "evolution" =
in<BR>any real sense if we have already been existing <BR>for an =
infinity into=20
the past (no beginning implies<BR>a non-linear manifestation). The=20
Theosophical<BR>notion that we are slowly evolving in this =
<BR>manvantara to=20
obtain self-consciousness is pure <BR>mayavic illusion in the sense that =
the=20
spiritual <BR>spark within each of us is already =
self-conscious.<BR>Progress and=20
evolution have a relative reality,<BR>But not an absolute =
reality.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>>>"Desire the PATH, not the =
end of=20
the<BR>Path." The goal is PROGRESS, not the state <BR>of having=20
progressed!>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>While I agree with the first sentence, =
I=20
can't<BR>agree with the second. The end of the path, so<BR>to =
speak, is=20
our Original Face, which is right<BR>in front of us -- we already have =
it. =20
Progress<BR>and treading the path are not only desired, but<BR>are =
really all we=20
in samsara can do. DT Suzuki,<BR>I think, once called this the =
Ultimate=20
Joke --<BR>that we tread an endless path only to discover<BR>that the =
end was=20
with us all the time and that the<BR>path itself is an =
illusion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>>One must have some =
COMPREHENSIVE view of=20
THE <BR>SECRET DOCTRINE before one can venture to criticize <BR>a work =
like=20
FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This sound a lot like something Dallas =
would=20
say,<BR>and I find it very objectionable. Basically, =
because<BR>only HPB=20
and the Masters have such a comprehensive view, <BR>this tells us that =
no one on=20
Earth other than a Master<BR>is qualified to criticize a book. Oh=20
please... </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>>it has revealed to me that =
there is in=20
existence a <BR>genuine Esoteric School in which the Spirit of the =
<BR>Masters'=20
teachings survives. Therefore I need no longer <BR>be a wanderer in the=20
Wilderness.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The " genuine Esoteric School" is the=20
Brotherhood<BR>of Compassion as defined by Purucker and all=20
human<BR>organizations are just that -- human organizations. If<BR>we =
take the=20
Theosophical "teachings" as given to us as <BR>truth itself, then we =
will indeed=20
be a wanderer in the <BR>wilderness, no different than anyone else. =
Those=20
who<BR>think that written words are "truth" are the same<BR>as those who =
mistake=20
the finger pointing at the moon<BR>for the moon itself -- an old Zen =
phrase that=20
still<BR>holds today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Just some thoughts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jerry S.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>Maureen writes,<BR><< OK, now =
my=20
dilemna.... Subsequent postings are <BR>leading me to believe the =
list may=20
perhaps be more <BR>a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher=20
<BR>ideals.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are new, and we have discussed this =
same=20
problem<BR>ad nauseum on this list for several years. So, I will<BR>try =
to=20
respond as briefly as possible:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1. You can't have normal people =
discussing=20
something<BR>as important as their world view or belief =
system<BR>without a lot=20
of conflict and squabbles. Mostly this<BR>comes from semantics =
problems=20
inherent in a network <BR>where we do not see or even know each other=20
except<BR>through our posts. But some is caused by legitimate =
<BR>differences=20
over interpretation, and we often simply <BR>have to agree to=20
disagree.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2. Theosophy teaches that the =
personal ego is=20
an<BR>illusion in agreement with Buddhism. Working with<BR>others =
on a=20
list such as this is an opportunity<BR>to see how you can handle=20
ego-bashing. Do you respond<BR>with more ego-bashing in turn, or =
do you=20
respond<BR>with patience and compassion? Its all up to each<BR>of =
us how=20
to do it, but I have discovered that lists<BR>such as this one present a =
serious=20
challenge to the<BR>ego, who usually likes to think itself "right" =
and<BR>others=20
"wrong." Those who have frail egos will<BR>usually leave the =
list. =20
Those who can laugh at<BR>what life brings on, and who have teflon egos=20
(a<BR>desirable characteristic) will usually stick it out <BR>and grow =
from=20
it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3. There is no "Theosophy" per se =
that we=20
can<BR>all agree with. HPB and other writer's works<BR>are all subject =
to=20
interpretation. Thus we on this<BR>Theosophical list have yet to agree =
on=20
what<BR>Theosophy is, let alone how to promote it. This<BR>has its =
advantages. For one thing, your interpretation<BR>is just as good =
and=20
valid as mine or anyone else's.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4. This list contains folks from =
newbies to=20
very<BR>advanced. It is difficult to discuss things that<BR>will appeal =
to=20
everyone. The newbies will not<BR>understand and feel left out =
while the=20
advanced<BR>will become bored. The solution is to have lots<BR>of =
threads=20
running, and to jump in where you want<BR>and to ignore those you don't =
care=20
for.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR><< How could it possibly =
matter at all if=20
someone <BR>gets their academic degree at 35??>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It doesn't. I got my Masters at =
49 and my=20
two<BR>PhDs only a few years ago (I am 57). Don't let <BR>this kind of=20
small-talk disarm you. Do<BR>what I like to do, and simply ignore what =
you=20
don't<BR>like while chiming in with what you do like.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The truly wonderful aspect of Theosophy =
is=20
that<BR>there is no "guru" who knows it all, and that<BR>it has a large =
umbrella=20
to keep many of us in<BR>out of the rain who otherwise would be at=20
each<BR>other's throats (so to speak...).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hope this helps.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jerry S.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dallas writes:<BR><< You have to =
understand=20
that students of <BR>Theosophy are quite ordinary people who have =
<BR>seized an=20
aspect of truth that is now<BR>working in and through their=20
minds.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Speak for yourself, Dallas. =
:)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR><< I mean books like THE KEY =
TO THEOSOPHY=20
by<BR>Mme. Blavatsky, or THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by <BR>Wm. Q. Judge., =
which we=20
all ought to have <BR>familiarized ourselves with. Then we =
could<BR>talk=20
about the principles laid out there, and <BR>not waste so much time on =
"far-out"=20
ideas and <BR>wild opinions.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dallas, the fact is that we have all=20
doubtless<BR>read and re-read these books. Judge =
himself<BR>declared that=20
Theosophy was like an ocean<BR>being deep at the center and shallow at=20
the<BR>shores. IMHO both books you quote above are<BR>discussions =
of the=20
shoreline of Theosophy. They<BR>are meant for newbies, and are excellent =
for<BR>that purpose. They are, however, totally useless<BR>(and =
downright=20
misleading) for anyone who wants<BR>to plumb the real depths, so to=20
speak.<BR>Personally, I have been in Theosophy for almost<BR>40 years, =
and am no=20
longer interested or<BR>intrigued by the shallow waters that I =
studied<BR>so=20
many years ago. If this list degenerates to<BR>discussions of Ocean and =
Key,=20
then I will quit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jerry S.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF3DA6.45919EE0--
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
