Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00056)

Thanks for your response. My comments below.

In a message dated 03/07/04 7:14:57 PM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>Thanks for your interesting comments. My responses below.
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>
>> In any event, since meditation requires full attention to the mind (vide, 
>> Buddha's admonition for "mindfulness" and constant "vigilance") how 
>> do we separate that from "thought"?
>
>Mindfulness in Buddhism is not discursive. For example, are you 
>aware of your left ear? If so, were you before reading the 
>question? If not, then you are not mindful in the Buddhist sense. 
>Mindfulness is about being in the here-and-now and in your body 
>(i.e., not dissociated.

This is a straw man argument. So long as my left ear can hear a sound, and 
my higher mind can interpret the sound wave interference patterns with relation 
to the right ear --I am "mindful" of exactly where that holographic sound is 
coming from. There is nothing that we see or hear or otherwise experience, 
discursive or not, that is not coming directly through or reflecting from the 
field of our mind. There is also such a thing as subliminal thought processes, 
that go on automatically even though we are not aware of them. In any event, 
to be mindful is still being thoughtful.

When I speak about the Buddha, I am referring to the real meaning behind what 
he said in the Dammapada, not to the exoteric interpretation of some of his 
disciples. As for myself, I'll stick with the Buddha and his esoteric 
"theosophy" and leave "Buddhism" and its exoteric misinterpretations and mispractices 
to those Buddhists who parrot those disciples. :-)

>>? It seems to me that to direct one's attention or 
>>concentration, even on emptiness, is still in the realm of self 
>>determined and self directed thought.
>
>There is a difference between focusing on emptiness and thinking 
>about emptiness. The former is meditation, the latter not.

Focusing what -- if not the mind itself or the light within the mind or 
reflected from it? Is that not an aspect of thought? When we think, we focus our 
mind on ideas and try to relate them. When that idea is emptiness, and that 
focus is concentrated to that point and held without deviation, is that not 
also pure meditation? 

>> As for the purpose of a stone and its existence in relation to humanity, 
>> doesn't theosophy say that all elements of existence will eventually 
evolve 
>> to become man? In the Kabala there is a saying, "First a stone, then a 
>> plant, then an animal, then a man, then, an angel, and finally God." Thus, 
>> all monads have a purpose, and by reflection, "as above, 
>> so below," so does the universe itself.
>
>You jumped logical levels here. First you say that bugs will become 
>people (which in some cases appears to me to have been a recent 
>transition) and then you say that this proves the existence of 
>purpose. There is a difference between purpose and destiny. All 
>mortals shall die, but the purpose of life is not death.

More straw men. What logical levels did I jump? I never said that "bugs 
will become people." I implied that all monads will eventually become human in 
this or another globe or manvantara. (This, directly confirmed by HPB, by the 
way.) Besides, I never said it directly, since I referred to theosophy and the 
Kabbala as the source of that information. And, how do you infer from what I 
did say that it was to "prove the existence of purpose"? We can only deduce 
purpose with respect to the Universe and all its parts based on accepted 
fundamental principles. As for me, I can only assume that the purpose of the 
Universe is to know itself. For if not, there would be no purpose in getting to 
know ourselves.

As for the rest, I agree that the purpose of life is not death, and that 
there is a difference between purpose and destiny. But, one purpose of manifest 
life could be (considering that the universe is "alive" whether asleep in 
Pralaya or Awake in Manvantara) -- to have the experience of separated existence's. 


Thus, from the standpoint of the Supreme Spirit, there is a purpose to such 
existential life in the flesh, so to speak. Accordingly, one purpose of each 
life that could be inferred from that, is to find their way back to the source 
and report on that experience to the Big Watcher. (Imagine what fascinating 
dreams it could have during the next Pralaya. :-) 
>
>> Maybe we should think about all that, before we start meditating on it.
>
>The problem with that statement is that meditation is not 
>discursive. Only by TRANSCENDING discursive reasoning does one come 
>to enlightenment.

But, I said "thinking about" what I said previously -- not "meditating on" 
it. And that -- "before meditating on it." 

So, I think you are confusing the practice of meditation with the goal of 
meditation. 

Not all thought has to be "discursive" (adj. 1. Covering a wide field of 
subjects; rambling. 2. Proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than 
intuition). 

Therefore, arriving at a conclusion and acquiring transcendent knowledge 
through meditatively induced intuition is as much a process of thought as is 
reasoning about it. How does one judge the validty of such awareness of such 
knowledge without having a thought about it? 

Some thoughts can be "one pointed." And, such one pointedness IS meditation.

Meditation, as explained by Patanjali, can also be of different degrees, such 
as with or without a seed. 

Therefore, to meditate without thought of one kind or another, at least until 
enlightenment is reached, is a futile endeavor. In the theosophic view, 
meditation is "continued concentration of the mind on a single thought or idea 
until its true nature or essence is revealed." That idea could be the mind 
itself. Thus, leading to the ultimate realization of the source of both it and the 
spirit that surrounds and contains it, and, eventually, arriving at a "true 
realization of the Self" or what some call "enlightenment." 

In this light, I think the conventional exoteric Buddhist interpretation of 
meditation is greatly misunderstood. Since, meditation actually is the process 
of transcending discursive reasoning and awakening the intuitive higher 
Buddhi-Manas. 

And, so long as that aspect of mind exists as the essential nature of the 
Monad, it must have the capability of thought -- whether that thought is of a 
single concrete idea or an "empty" point of attention. Especially, if one is to 
intuitively grasp and understand the meaning of the "ultimate division of 
time" -- which Patanjali says is the determining condition of complete 
enlightenment.  (The word enlightenment could be considered as "filled with the light 
of understanding," or to be relieved of the weight of discursive thoughts or 
"modifications of the thinking principle.") But, that doesn't mean to eliminate 
thought altogether. Since, without intuitive thoughts or direct perception of 
true ideation's, and meditating on such ideas, there can be no enlightenment.

Therefore, to realize that condition in relation to the experience of oneness 
with the Supreme Spirit does not eliminate that ideation or thought in the 
persistent Buddhi-Manas -- without which Spirit or Atma could not exist 
independently. (WQJ points out that Atma or the Spirit in man is NOT the Supreme 
Spirit.) 

It follows that to realize one's unity with the all, and thus be released 
from ignorance, is still dependent on a thought or idea in the higher 
Buddhi-Manas -- which remains as part of the Monad, even after death of the brain-body 
(which death also includes its discursive lower mind or Kama-Manas). 

Incidentally, how could enlightened Adepts (or the Dhyan Chohan builders or 
architects of the Universe) converse with each other on the higher planes, if 
they could not think before they said anything? And, are we not, then, nothing 
more than "thoughts in the mind of God," so to speak?