Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00064)

Tuesday, April 10, 2001


Dear Jerry:

Thanks -- and some more notes below

Dal

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:52 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: Res to Dallas -- continuation


<<DTB Not being experienced in any astral light perception or
control, I
avoid having anything to do with it on a "will," or a "curiosity"
basis.
By nature, I am extremely cautious. I am extremely cautious in
regard to any
astral light perception, or control (inner or external) and thus
I avoid
having anything to do with it on any basis. You may characterize
me as
anything you please, and perhaps you may be right in your
estimate. But
that is a stance I have adopted till I know a lot more about the
"astral
plane." In the meanwhile I make my notes and keep all
descriptions in
mind.>>

JERRY: OK.
====================================

<<<<How can you make such a statement in light of the second
law of thermodynamics????? This universe is increasing
in entropy and is slowly turning into a particle soup,
according to modern science.

DTB This is unverified theory.>>>

JERRY: The idea of entropy comes to us from Rudolf
Clausius (1822-1888) over 100 years ago, and has been
verified by more scientists than I can count. No one
has been able to disprove it. Its about as theoretical
as Newton. Of course it only holds for closed systems,
and Prigogine's entropy holds for open systems, but
the energy has to come from somewhere. In fact, it
took chaos theory to explain the paradox of evolution
in face of a running-down universe.

DTB Yes I also know the history of its evolution.
But inasmuch as everything is a balance between POSITIVE and
NEGATIVE the loss must go SOMEWHERE.
Science is fine for accurate observation.
When it comes to speculate upon those, it tends to work on the
hypothesis that the rules have been invariable since eternity,
and so on into the unforeseeable future. This is pure
HYPOTHESIS. Nothing proves it. Paleontological, anthropological
and geological estimates vary widely -- even "dating" methods all
show some inexactitude. So to base supposed FACTS on pre theory
is always dangerous and in one examines the past 150 year those
changes will be seen and admitted. Ay best we can speak of the
PRESENT.
2. That the Universe works in a way identical to our Earth.
{see S.D. I 142 -- for an interesting variant).
==================================


<<<I would presume that the theory of evolutionary "start"
accounts for...>>

JERRY: Its the "start" business that is the bane of
every evolutionary scheme that I have ever heard about
except for Blavatsky if we take her at her word about
evolution being followed by an involution, the whole
being a great circle.

Only when we let the Arc of
Descent and Arc of Ascent form a Round or circle can
we get around the start problem. If the 7 Rounds
of every manvantaric cycle form a circle, then there
is no problem. Then there is no beginning or end. If
they form a spiral then we are stuck with the
illogical start problem.

Do you see what I am trying
to do here? I am trying to eliminate the illogic
that I see in some Theosophical writings. It is
totally illogical to say on the one hand that we
"progress" and then on the other hand say that we
have no beginning or end. The "progress" seen by
science does have a start - the Big Bang, but no
one can say what happened before that event nor
where the original dense matter came from, nor why
it exploded, etc. etc.

----------------------------------------------

DTB I agree the WORDS are incongruent and misleading.
If the cyclic theory (a fact according to occult records) is
admitted, then the "beginning" disappears and we have an endless
chain -- of which our PRESENT is a small slice.

The concept of an infinitesimal "life-unit" (MONAD) which is
eternal, and whose companions fill all SPACE and TIME and are in
constant MOTION -- that these are endowed with an INTELLIGENCE
that "grows" through experience over billions of "our" years --
that acquires Self-consciousness, and whose destiny is an
indescribable UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF (ALL) -- is all
this a construct, a fantasy? Are we to say that you and I and
the rest are all illusions because our "progress" is indefinable
in purely MATERIAL TERMS ?

But even taking MATERIALISM into account, and saying it was the
only criterion worth considering, then the SOURCE or the CAUSE of
the present multiplex situation still remains to be determined as
to origin and purpose, and requires some explanation. Why do we
consider our MINDS capable of securing this?
There are too many unanswered questions and paradoxes. No easy
or hasty answer suffices.

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



<<<...How else would self-determination and
individual consciousness develop ? Do they not need a field
whereon to have experience and develop the wisdom from
observations that all profit from? >>>

JERRY: Well, I suspect that consciousness has always
been with us, although human consciousness is an
evolutionary development within this mayavic "field."
----------------------------------------------------


DTB Even so that does not explain it, it only says
"maybe." But I think there has to be an explanation that will
satisfy even our material-bound current framer of thinking.
Now -- to find it. As far as I have been able to see, looking
at a great mass of information from various sources, Theosophy
has been the only one that so far has provided any signs of an
integration along what appear to be logical lines.

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



<<I try not to confuse the "theories" of modern science based on
their
observations over a small fraction of time (2 to 400 years) But
the observed
entropy is first fueled by a certain measurable increment and
perhaps what
we look at is a normal return to equilibrium. In any case it is
a vibratory
movement of which we need to see both sides.>>

JERRY: I have more respect for science, I guess. I think
that we have come a very long way in our observations.
I agree, of course, that science only looks at the physical
plane. But modern science is pretty much in agreement
with the Buddist emptiness doctrine in that matter is
virtually all empty space, just an illusive form of
energy, after all. It is our physical senses that make
everything appear so real to us. Buddhists have known
this for many centuries. We in the West are just catching
on to it.
------------------------------------------------------


DTB Yes, and the so-called "empty space" is now being
filled mathematically with the necessity for "dark matter" which
balances existing visible matter and gives a better cohesion to
"gravity." There are many unanswered questions, but the modern
discoveries seem to be filling in the "prophecies and so-called
gaps" which we think theosophy has in H.P.B.'s presentation.
Trouble is we really haven't studied H.P.B.'s THEOSOPHY
carefully -- I know I haven't although I've been at it for many
years.
I think it reconciles all philosophical/theological/antiquarian
views. At least it does not jeer at anything except insecure
theories.

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


<<DTB I think you are trying to say that there is a Perceiver
or a Watcher
that looks on the fuzzy clouds (thoughts) and tries to
distinguish confusion
and obscuration from exactitude and necessity. But is that not
the REAL MAN
within? I mean the one who uses the MIND and is the THINKER?
Is that not
the Eternal Pilgrim? ...>>

JERRY: No, the cloud watcher is our human ego or human
mind or manas. What it sees, in between the thought-
clouds, is emptiness. There is no REAL MAN or eternal
pilgrim anywhere. This is simply an interpretation
of the experience after human consciousness returns.
-------------------------------------------------


DTB To accept that analogy a number of things need to
be made clearer.

1. Who "Watches ?" What is its "nature?" Why is it there ?

2. Between "clouds" the "empty Sky" is filled with air,
vapor, elementals, and the rest of the Universe terminating
(figuratively) with the perception in space/time of the enormous
distances to the limits of what it can "see."

3. Why deny what one can neither prove nor disprove? If you
say there is no "Eternal Pilgrim," you may be speaking for
yourself, but, not necessarily for me, or Tsong ka pa or the
Buddha. The repetition of another's doctrine (in either your or
my case) does not prove we have understood the original meaning
We may grasp or not grasp meanings, but how do they equate with
REALITY or even "THINGS AS THEY ARE?"

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

When manas is transcended, sooner or later it regains
focus. When it does, it has to relate the experience
of spiritual formlessness to its worldview, like it
does with all experiences.
----------------------------------------------------------

DTB As I said, that which transcends Lower Manas is
the Higher: Buddhi-manas. And according to Theosophy the
"worldview" is always in its grasp. As an indissoluble part of
the MONAD (in manifestation) it is not SEPARATED from any other
Monad, but shares in their universal experience and viewpoints.
(At least that is as I understand it.) In the KEY TO THEOSOPHY
you will find that H.P.B. explains the triple nature of Manas
see pp. 178 - 184 ]

DTB I agree that this is how the Lower Manas would
speak. But the Higher Manas transcends this matter-based
relationship, for the reason that the source and cause of the
MATTER is still not made clear. Existence or memory is proof of
experience and being, but that does not tell us who or what are
the origins and capabilities of the Thinker, or his Mind are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-

If the worldview acknowledges
an atman, then that is how it interprets the experience.
If the worldview acknowledges no-self, then it will
interpret the experience as no-self.
If the worldview
acknowledges an eternal Pilgrim or Real Self or Monad
then it will interpret the experience that way, and so
on. How else can you explain how so many saints, mystics,
and poets have had these experiences and have all
explained them so differently?
OK, so what is REALLY going on, that we each interpret so
differently?

I can only smile...
--------------------------------------------------


DTB I would say that most exalted beings [ the
"Wise"] try to convey their experience to their disciples and
humanity. But often language and the common mind-set of people
make it difficult for them to see what the "Wise" have viewed,
and attempt to explain.

What is the bridge? I think we can say it is the Mind and its
faculties. If those are grasped and used, then it may be
possible to share in the supernal experience of the WISE. We
have to call on the equivalent but potential power locked up in
our Higher Self, and use it to illuminate the lower mind which we
use all the time.

WISDOM is supposed to be universal and without any proprietors.
It is said to be innate in us (in the MONAD) [ I just posted
something on this in S.D. Basic on http://www.blavatsky.net ]

But no amount of words or analogies will ever substitute for the
THING IN ITSELF. At best they say "I seem to have
understood" ------ "Can you use this ?" And there everything
becomes a matter of self-consideration, rejection or use. The
freedom of the investigator ought not to be channeled or
restricted. Freedom of discovery is the surest way to
self-realization. I do not mean the realization of the Lower
Self -- Persona -- Mask, but of the INNER, the HIGHER SELF.
That inner INDIVIDUAL has both the experience and the answers,
but it has to be addressed directly. I think that is why
meditation is so often misunderstood and materialized into a
nothingness concept.

As far as I can "see" SOMETHING cannot visualize or speak
accurately of NOTHING or even of NO-THING. If you can think or
"see" the you cannot non-esse yourself. We have to escape from
doctrines, the phrasing of which may not completely sit in our
customary words and current phrases. When interior, esoteric and
occult things are thought of and transferred through words, the
words act as filters and barriers. I think that is why it is
said that each person has to make himself into his own "priest."
A paradoxical idea.

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


<<They are conditioned and temporary limits to physical eyesight
(used as an
analogy for mental perception). As a matter of fact, regardless
of ground,
sky, clouds, it is still "I AM I" which does the Perceiving.>>

JERRY: I think that your so-called I-AM-I is just
manas. Beyond manas, our sense of self is quite
different. Atma, for example, is more like a collective
oneness than an individual Self. Self and Other are
a duality, and in non-duality both are transcended.
A high degree of samadhi, for example, will contain
neither a Self nor an Other per se.


DTB Looking at what I wrote just above this answer of
yours I guess we are speaking of the same kind of difficulties.
I say "Lower-Manas" when the Mind is wrapped in desire. I say
"Higher-Manas" when the Mind is wrapped in the robes of a wise
person who seeks all the information that the universe affords to
him. I have a strong feeling that we make our own limitations and
ignorances by setting limits to things. If we took all incoming
as material to sift and sort out, instead of putting it through
some automatic rejection system we have devised, then the period
to becoming wise might shorten. But I can see with my self that
there are some things I tend to reject too quickly.

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



<<<<But what are you? You experience a body and a mind, and
then impute a self dependent on those experiences - but
that doesn't make it so. Reality is NOT what it appears.


DTB Those objections do not make entire sense to me.
Can you clarify?>>>

JERRY: A great saint named Ramana Maharishi used the
technique of asking . Who am I? He was Hindu, but his
writings are very suggestive of anatma because when
we look for a self somewhere within our body/mind
complex (the so-called skandhas) we don't find one.
-------------------------------------------------------------

DTB I am familiar with the concept. Is it not
because we really are dealing with 7 planes of consciousness in
which and of which the highest is the ATMA ? How can the ONE
SELF see itself unless it devises "mirrors?" Is it not for this
original purpose that "Manifestation" exists? Is in not for this
that in order to "know MYSELF, I have to know the reflections
that represent it at the various levels of life. If I were
totally alone, this might sound redundant But I find myself
surrounded by a host of beings which appear to have a reason for
their existence, and which impinge on me. Then comes a
philosophy that integrates these and offers relevance and
meaning. Shall I not use it ?
Invoking ANATMA does not fully answer the problem, but it does
defer answering, does it not ?

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

Even in a conventional sense, we say we 'have' a
body and that we 'have' a mind which suggests a
dissociation from them. But what is this I that is
different from the body/mind? Well, we postulate
a Higher Self, and then impute its existence, but
this doesn't make it so. I have found in my own
meditations that whatever "self" I seem to have on
any level/plane, I can somehow transcend it. This
can go on until I reach a non-duality where no more
sense of self is experienced at all. I am still
looking for a permanent self some where, but so far
have not found one. I do agree with the Individuality
of Blavatsky, but I see it as not much more real than
the Personality. In other words, both ego and Ego
are impermanent.

DTB As far as I can determine, following the same
general process, it must be the PERMANENT and the TRANSCENDENT
which is able to perceive degrees of localized immanence and
localized ability. If this HIGHEST were not there, then even the
process you outline would not be possible. I think you describe
the result of your observation from the point of view of the
SUPREME self-limited to the personal and material around which
THIS LIFE is set.


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


<< DTB But in considering the MONAD to be conjoined
SPIRIT (Atma) and
PRIMORDIAL MATTER (Buddhi) are we not saying that which you do
under "Rigpa"
[a term I am unfamiliar with] It is the INNER HIGHER SELF, THE
PERCEIVER ,
the ETERNAL WITNESS. It is a "force powerful for good" rather
than any
"person." It is an intimate and powerful "agent" of the
Universal NATURE
which exists as Patanjali puts it: for the sake of the "Soul's"
experience.>>

JERRY: The Monad does not so conjoin. It sends out a
"ray" that conjoins with atma after entering this
7-plane solar system. The Monad remains forever
eternal and infinite totally outside of our space-
time continuum and 7-plane solar system. Rigpa is
a Dzogchen term that will become more familiar to
people as Dzogchen itself becomes more familiar.
Dzogchen is translated as the Great Perfection, and
is considered to be the highest teaching in
Tibetan Buddhism (it also is found in Bon).

DTB The UNIVERSAL MONAD is of course PRESENCE -- or
as I might say quoting the S.D. "ABSOLUTENESS." Its "radiations"
provide individual Monads of lesser experience with their being
and their life and purpose (of seeking to return to the condition
of the UNIVERSAL MONAD -- or a reunification in terms of
CONSCIOUSNESS to that ONE. I think the concept is a common one,
regardless of the School from which it is drawn. The esoteric
schools and philosophies all meet in the same logical focus, but
of course use words and designations that seem to make them
distant from one another.

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


<<DTB In theosophy H.P.B. uses it to indicate the
SOURCE of all modifications or evolutions -- an ETERNAL and
INSCRUTABLE BACKGROUND. It is neither manifested nor
non-manifested. It IS.>>

JERRY: Agreed. And this is very misleading, but I
suppose she had a limited English vocabulary.

DTB For her self she admits that, yet if one reads
her writings carefully one realizes that she is really familiar
with a wide and deep range of English -- something that in itself
indicates the value of what she writes about. Also, remember
that she only claimed to be writing on behalf of the Adepts --
who certified to this , as I think I already gave you the
reference.

But this really proves nothing in itself as the ideas are the
basis for appreciation, or rejection.

Anyway her Absolute seems to be what Dzogchen calls rigpa.
This kind of comparison allows us to see the basic
similarities between her Theosophy and Tibetan
Buddhism. And there are, I think, many. I think she
deliberately chose words that Westerners could come
to grips with, and avoided terms like emptiness that
were sure to be misunderstood.

DTB I believe you are correct in this surmise.
===================================


<<As to the IDEAS I would judge that in the basic fundamentals
there is no
difference. The only confusion would arise about the veils and
connotations
that either exoteric Buddhism or exoteric Theosophy might place
there.
In the S.D. H.P.B. spends a good deal of space making sure that
the words an
symbols of various ancient theogonies and
religious/philosophical systems are shown to be equivalents. I
think this
is part of our training in learning how the Universal Doctrine
could be
expressed or is expressed by various existing systems.>>

JERRY: OK
=====================


<< DTB In manifestation the contrasts serve to balance and
explain each
other. But there is even in this chaotic situation a single line
which is
impartial medial, and able therefore to distinguish between
extremes -- it
holds t the "Middle Way" of balance and relies on a consensus of
observations and thoughts to secure a closer understanding of
reality. At
least that is how I understand it.>>

JERRY: According to the Middle Way School of Tibetan
Buddhism, Truth is neither an absolute permanence
nor a void nothingness because absolutism and nihilism
are both extremes to be avoided. So when we transcend
our manas-minds we should experience something that
is neither permanent nor a blank nothingness. This
teaching dovetails with my own experiences.

DTB EXACTLY. The balance enables equivalence, and
continuity.
===============================



<< "Absolute" is a way of saying there is an ever-present
SOMETHING -- an indescribable SOURCE.>>

JERRY: This is a tricky subject. In an ontological
sense, we can postulate a Be-ness or a rigpa or an
absolute existence. But when we do this, we will
never be able to actually get there or experience
it.
DTB If it can be accepted that the highest aspect of
ourselves (NOT the embodied lower Manas of waking life) is a
portion of this "Be-ness, then the consubstantiality makes it
possible to think about IT, and the part we, and every other
individualized MONAD in the whole Universe, play together (a
cooperative and a voluntary brotherhood) -- as I see it, the
limit we place on ourself of consciousness as known here and now
when we are awake and volitional, may be the limiting factor.
The concept of Be-ness (ABSOLUTENESS ?) may be just the lever
needed to cause the limited consciousness to widen out along
lines of logic and analogy to a more universal position.
======================================

Buddha was a pragmatist and his teachings are
largely practical in nature. In meditative practice
we need to avoid the extreme views of absolute
and nothingness else we doom ourselves before we
start. So Buddhist talk about buddha-nature and also
about rigpa, and HPB talks about Space and Be-ness
and the Absolute. But our experiences of them is
something else. Why? Because in the end, even the
Absolute, even rigpa, have to be transcended.

DTB I imagine that each step in advance lures us
onward. And the terms we may use to day that appear to be
indicative of polarity in an absolute sense will, some day have
to be given up.

For example we may see and understand a linear 7-fold Nature in
Universe and man. Then we might be able to extend this into a 7
x 7 = 49 plane, A plane where each of the primary 7 are seen to
contain aspects of the other 6. But going further into the
spatial concept if we add a further depth of 7 we have 7 x 7 x 7
= 343 aspects. From a single point we developed a septenary,
then 7 times that produces a "plane" (of consciousness?)
Expanding further to the 3rd "dimension" we get a solid -- a cube
= 343 definitions of the SELF in major ways and methods.
Probably there are further dimensions (such as "string-theory"
envisages, including "time) that will become comprehensible to us
eventually. At the moment, even considering the 7 x 7 is not at
all easy, nor does it yet yield (to me) useful conclusions.
=====================================


<< So I conclude that beyond the
Lower manas, there has to be a higher, wiser one. How is that to
be
contacted and used?>>

JERRY: There is a higher manas, and even experiences
beyond manas altogether. They are experienced in
meditation.

DTB AGREED
==================================


<<On the other hand if our CONSCIOUSNESS IS ONE and as such is
able to pass
unmodified from plane to plane, then the memories of experience
on any one
plane are accessible to it wherever it may be for the moment. It
then
requires a effort of will to change consideration to whatever
level one
desires to work on or perceive by. Does this help?>>

JERRY: While consciousness can focus on any of the
7 planes, when it returns to the manas-level of the
mental plane, memory is filtered through the brain
and everything has to be interpreted. This is easy
when the focus is on the physical or astral planes,
but much more difficult when filtered from the
higher planes because it has nothing to compare
the experiences to. My own take on this is that we
all experience pretty much the same thing on each
plane, but vast differences come into play during the
later interpretive process of the brain-mind. For
example, HPB points out to us that dreamless sleep
is a formless peaceful experience, but that actually
our brains are too dense to be able to interpret
the formless experience and so it appears after we
wake up as if it were a blank voidness. Dreamless
sleep is an experience on the causal plane. When we
experience even higher planes, even more interpretive
difficulties ensue until we adjust our worldview
accordingly and get used to the experiences by
repetition.

Dtb In general agreed, though in TRANSACTIONS (I
already referred to -- pp. 66 - 76) H.P.B. gives a far more
detailed report on the interplay between the Higher Manas and the
ATMA-BUDDHIC Self. Have you had an opportunity to re-read these
? (BCW, VOL. 10 pp. 252 - 263)


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

<< DTB As I said, the words do not trouble me, I would
prefer to have
definitions, or else we reach an impasse. Familiar as I am, with
both Hindu
and Buddhist philosophy, and with Theosophy, I seek to grasp
what they
teach in common. In other words, to get beyond and behind the
words and
phrases. Those tend to divide.>>

JERRY: OK
=======================================

<<DTB Again this is contrast. ATMA is undefinable. So too is
ANATMA -- at
least definable in our physico-material terms and using the
present Lower
Manasic tools.>>

JERRY: Well in a sense I agree, but in another sense
we can define atma as an inherent sense of selfhood,
and anatma as an inherent lack of any sense of
selfhood.

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

>>DTB As far as I can understand the contact of
UNIVERSAL ATMA to any
ATMIC "Ray" is almost instantaneous. Time and distance in our
plane of
reference does not exist there.>>

JERRY: Agreed.

<<In TRANSACTIONS (above mentioned) the Dream state is of
several levels.
1. -- corresponding to Kama which is emotional, and 2.
corresponding to
Higher Manas (Buddhi-Manas) The division here is between
altruism and
selfishness, universality and isolation in personal attitude.
These are
very broad definitions as there are many other divisions in the
matter of
dreams as TRANSACTIONS
details on p. 78.>>

JERRY: Agreed.


<<The determinants are quite different. If we assume that SPIRIT
or ATMA
whether in its entirely or in its metaphysical "Rays" can only be
represented by "perfection" and "altruism" everything lower in
moral level
than that is defective to some extent.>>

JERRY: Agreed.
===========================================

<< DTB And that is why, when discussing Theosophical
ideas, and also being
cautious so as not to confuse others as to meanings, When I do
quote, I try
to give the references, so that you, or anyone, may go there and
read for
themselves what H.P.B. (or some other person) says.>>

JERRY: OK. Sometimes I agree with the quote as you
give it, and sometimes I think it is out of context.

DTB OK I do that too. I puzzle, and do not discard
my uncertainties, but then, mulling them over long time, I have
eventually arrived at some conclusions such as those I now share
with you.

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


<<I think you are right in saying that selective quotes are very
often
misleading. That is why I say we are each "filters" of even our
own
meanings. However, if we are going to deal with Theosophical
values and
meanings we are not going to escape from HPB's presentations.>>

JERRY: Agreed. But a lot of Blavatsky is not meant
to be taken literally, IMHO.

DTB She said that what she wrote was not the ULTIMATE
TRUTH, but tended towards it. She said that in the nature of
things analogy and symbol always represented some approximation
to actuality. If she / we insisted on being literal as to words,
we might indeed loose the IDEAS.

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


<<If there is real error in what I have to offer, then, a student
may have
some reference that improves on it or confutes it. If that is
shared, then:
That would be most valuable, since we are looking for the TRUTH
OF THINGS
and not just to prove ourselves "right." None of our views are
anything but
perhaps a shadow, a small portion of REALITY and TRUTH. We are
all learners
as well as sharers of what we have acquired.>>

JERRY: Agreed. But I have given you quotes too on
occasion, and you apparently either ignore them
or interpret them differently (the latter would be
my guess).

DTB True, but I do not ignore them. Those I
understand I try to make sure you know I do, those where I
sense a difference, I inquire further into, or place my own
conclusions (and reasons therefore) in juxtaposition for you to
consider. We're getting pretty good at this, I think.
======================================


<<Was not that the reason why Ammonius Saccas started the
Eclectic School in
Alexandria so many centuries ago? Does not the T.S. try to
continue such
work?

As always,

thanks Dallas,>>

JERRY: The TS is not supposed to be a school of any
kind, so far as I know.

DTB Well then I miss my understanding of what H.P.B.
has offered us from the beginning. It may not be a formal
"school" but the teachings it endorses and the research it
encourages are in the nature of an educational experience.

The organization of the TS has undergone, historically, a number
of changes; and any one who reads the chronological and magazine
literature is able to piece together those changes.
Apparently it was never intended to be monolithic or dictatorial.
I like to use what H.P.B. wrote in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY as a
guide to understanding the purpose of the T.S.
Using other concepts, and those developed after her death, seem
to stray from that primary basis, but then, again this is a
matter of opinion. "The TALKING IMAGE OF URUR" seems to be a
good basis for looking at the T.S. as it was originally
formulated and directed in those prime growing times.

Dal

Jerry S.


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net