Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00061)

Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> > >No ego or self reincarnates. This is a basic Buddhist teaching,
> > >which I agree with.  BTW, the "real" you is already spiritual, and doesn't
> > >need another life on Earth or anywhere else. The whole notion of a
> > >personal self that learns and grows via reincarnation is a maya. It is
> > >the exoteric view of reincarnation, and one that HPB tried to dispell.
> > >Unfortunately, the TSs have all touted this exoteric view since HPB
> > >and have done a general dis-service to humanity (IMO of course).
> >
> >
> >In my understanding the view that HPB tried to dispel is that held
> >by many spiritualists of her time which claimed that the human
> >personality, regularly and quickly returned to earth-life, the
> >denial of reincarnation apply only to "astral monad".
>
> This is also my understanding of what she taught.


Right, it is the tendancies and propensities that are the only carry
over from the previous personality. If, by the "real you" you mean the
Monad, then it must be realized that it is not your personal identity.
This is what I was trying to say a post or so ago, it all comes down to
identification. In the center of the center of the personal ego is a
mystery to be fathomed.


> >What she taught
> >is that there is an Inner or Higher Ego which is the permanent Individuality,
> >the Reincarnating Ego, it becomes more and more individualized and learns
> >more and more by suffering through its cycle of rebirths.
>
> Yes, but she also taught that "permanent" and "eternal" only refers
> to this manvantara. Thus the Ego is long-lasting, but not truly eternal.
> This is also the Buddhist view.


The Theosophical view is that the Monad in it's upper triad
(Atma-Buddhi-Manas)is considered as the Reincarnating Ego only when it
is established in residence in the Causal Body. That this Causal Body,
once formed (at Individualization), lasts for the rest of the duration
of the manvantara is a little like saying it's "eternal" (relatively) as
far as it's human personalities are concerned, although technically it
is not so (not absolutely eternal). Neither is the idea of any
individual Monad, upper triad, or any manifested Being anywhere for that
matter, since they are all products of Maya.  Can I also ask you what
Buddhist schools teach this view and in what terms?


> >This Ego
> >starts with Divine consciousness; no past, no future, no separation,
> >although the inner essence of the Higher Ego is unsoilable, the outer
> >may be soiled. At the end of its cycle of incarnations, it is still
> >the same divine consciousness, but it has now become individualized
> >self consciousness.
>
>
> No. Only the Monad starts with divine consciousness. I think if you
> re-read her material you will find that the Reincarnating Ego is but
> a "ray" of the Monad, and thus is not divine, nor is it eternal.
> The whole idea of "individualized self consciousness" is very
> tricky. How can we presume to suppose a divine Monad starts
> out without self-consciousness?  The Ego may gain self-consciousness
> but not the Monad.


Theosophically speaking, the Monad, on its own plane is both divine and
self-conscious. The "ray" it puts forth at Individualization via
Atma-Buddhi-Manas is in total ignorance as far as awareness and
functionality in the newley formed Causal Body on the arupa sub-planes
of Manas is concerned. It has to learn, by personal experience in
incarnations on planes even below that, to develop consciousness and
self-awareness as an Ego on it's own Causal plane.


> >The Yogacharyas assert that the mind-basis-of-all (alaya-vijnana)
> >is the actual I since it is the transmigrator and carrier of seeds.
> >This tenet is very similar to HPB's.
>
> Right. But the Yogacharayas are not the whole of Buddhism.
> The Dzogchen, which is generally considered a "higher" school,
> does not go along with the alaya-vijnana notion. IMHO, the only "real"
> I is the Monad, about which little can be said.
>
> >In the Prasangika system, it is the mere-I imputed in dependence upon
> >the mental and physical aggregates that nevertheless can function
> >and transmigrates.
>
> The Prasangika teach a higher form of Buddhism than the Yogacharaya,
> IMHO. The key word in your statement is "dependence."  The question
> is, Where is an independent I, and the answer is that such an I does
> not exist.


It's important to understand that there are many schools of Buddhism and
that they hold divergent views.


> >There will be no profit to say that doctrine of reincarnation, even
> >as generally understood, is Maya, it is true that outside of the
> >Absolute everything is illusion and in reality there is no one in
> >delusion and no one to get enlightenment but as long as we have to use
> >words as mean of communication, the doctrine should be treated as
> >conventional truth and as one of the best possible descriptions of
> >reality that will help us out of the mire of Maya.
>
> If you are saying here that reincarnation exists as conventional
> truth, then I wholehearted agree. Reincarnation does not exist
> as absolute truth.

What never was
cannot be lost.
What always is
determines self.

Peace,
Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com
E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com