[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Aug 08, 2006 06:13 AM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck

Part 2   MEDITATION AND CONTEMPLATION  [  reprinted  ]

DTB  offers :
We often seem to get embroiled in using words that mean different things to
several of us.  
Under those circumstances we usually end up in long exchanges trying to make
ourselves better understood.
I came across this article and thought it might help.  
As I see it, it offers the concept that behind and within the words used, we
probably agree more often than not, on ideas and mental processes.
Where we do have trouble, is sometimes our sources of reference are unknown
to some of our correspondents.  If those can be quoted, then much of this
problem vanishes.
One of these instances is the beginning, present age and probable future --
or the termination of our Earth and Universe (not to mention ourselves as
"Mind-beings." )  Traditions are referred to -- but, does logic agree ?
Did our present Universe actually have its roots in an earlier one?  
Will our present Universe (and our work in it) survive, and give hope that
it is not wasted effort ?
As an example, in The VOICE OF THE SILENCE, the LIGHT ON THE PATH, 
the BHAGAVAD GITA and PATANJALI'S YOGA SUTRAS we find that the words like "mind" and "soul" are used, sometimes for 
            or KAMA-MANAS,  [the Desire-Mind,  “LOWER MIND  or LOWER MANAS”
            or just plain MANAS  [unbiased, honest, organ of thought]
(using the Theosophical definitions we can find in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY, The
Some object to a "moral" shading of some concepts -- what is meant is merely
the observance of the universal laws of complete openness, fair-play and
reciprocity.  The reverse is usually considered reprehensible.
In other expressions we find (considering a goal for our future) an
underlying emphasis on pleasure, bliss, amusement, the ending of strife and
contention, and other forms of unpleasant, or pleasant emotion. 
Is that the real end of all life's work?
The Universe has been here a long time, and (if it should be true that we,
as immortal MONADS, are as long-lived as it is) then may we, indeed, in
time, train ourselves to become Masters of the “WISDOM OF THE AGES”?   That is a "goal" held out to us to consider, is it not? 
If we read the last 4 or 5 pages of The VOICE OF THE SILENCE (and the
footnotes there) we find mentioned several degrees of attainment for all
Sages and Wise Men, regardless of their popular or religious designations.  
Some state that the UNIVERSE begins and ends -- but we have no way of
proving this in the "here and now."  It is a logical assumption based on
several ancient teachings and traditions. Most of the SECRET DOCTRINE is
devoted to demonstrating how ancient wisdom knew and teaches this as
THEOSOPHY today.  
Unity, instead of difference and disunity, is emphasized as a primary basis,
also, a single code of universal LAW {instead of 'chaos'} is emphasized. 
How is it that beings limited by time (birth and death) dream and think
about the qualities needed to join the ranks of the immortals ?  
How is it that THEOSOPHY posits man's basic existence to repose on a
Spiritual Monad [ATMA - BUDDHI] ?
"All is impermanent in man except the pure bright essence of Alaya. Man is
its crystal ray; a beam of light immaculate within, a form of clay material
upon the lower surface. That beam is thy life-guide and thy true Self, the
Watcher and the silent Thinker, the victim of thy lower Self. Thy Soul
cannot be hurt but through thy erring body; control and master both, and
thou art safe when crossing to the nearing "Gate of Balance."   Voice, p. 63
It is true that this as a concept can be agreeably accepted as logical -- to
some, but not to others -- in which case we would ask:
What use is life if nothing can be "carried forward" that results from
effort ?
How can we continue to live in a chaotic, chancy world?
Are there no reasonable solutions?
Best wishes,

Aspasia quotes:
In the SECRET DOCTRINE  II  p. 661 - 4   HPB writes:
“Haeckel's theory that "speech arose gradually from a few simple, crude animal sounds . . . ." as such "speech still remains amongst a few races of lower rank" (Darwinian theory in "Pedigree of Man," p. 22) is altogether unsound, as argued by Professor Max Muller, among others. He contends that no plausible explanation has yet been given as to how the "roots" of language came into existence. 
A human brain is necessary for human speech. And figures relating to the size of the respective brains of man and ape show how deep is the gulf which separates the two. 
Vogt says that the brain of the largest ape, the gorilla, measures no more than 30.51 cubic inches; while the average brains of the flat-headed Australian natives — the lowest now in the human races — amount to 99.35 cubic inches! Figures are awkward witnesses and cannot lie. Therefore, as truly observed by Dr. F. Pfaff, whose premises are as sound and correct as his biblical conclusions are silly:  
"The brain of the apes most like man, does not amount to quite a third of the brain of the lowest races of men: it is not half the size of the brain of a new-born child." ("The Age and Origin of Man.") From the foregoing it is thus very easy to perceive that in order to prove the Huxley-Haeckelian theories of the descent of man, it is not one, but a great number of "missing links" — a true ladder of progressive evolutionary steps — that would have to be first found and then presented by Science to thinking and reasoning humanity, before it would abandon belief in gods and the immortal Soul for the worship of Quadrumanic ancestors. Mere myths are now greeted as "axiomatic truths." 
Even Alfred Russel Wallace maintains with Haeckel that primitive man was a speechless ape-creature. To this Joly answers: — "Man never was, in my opinion, this pithecanthropus alalus whose portrait Haeckel has drawn as if he had seen and known him, whose singular and completely hypothetical genealogy he has even given, from the mere mass of living protoplasm to the man endowed with speech and a civilization analogous to that of the Australians and Papuans." ("Man before Metals," p. 320, N. Joly. Inter. Scient. Series.) 
"Haeckel, among other things, often comes into direct conflict with the Science of languages. In the course of his attack on Evolutionism (1873, "Mr. Darwin's Philosophy of Language"), Prof. Max Müller stigmatized the Darwinian theory as "vulnerable at the beginning and at the end." The fact is, that only the partial truth of many of the secondary "laws" of Darwinism is beyond question — M. de Quatrefages evidently accepting "Natural Selection," the "struggle for existence" and transformation within species, as proven not once and for ever, but pro. tem. But it may not be amiss, perhaps, to condense the linguistic case against the "Ape ancestor" theory: — 
Languages have their phases of growth, etc., like all else in nature. It is almost certain that the great linguistic families pass through three stages. 
(1) All words are roots and merely placed in juxtaposition (Radical languages). 
(2) One root defines the other, and becomes merely a determinative element (Agglutinative). 
(3) The determinative element (the determinating meaning of which has long lapsed) unites into a whole with the formative element (Inflected). 
The problem then is: Whence these ROOTS? Max Müller argues that the existence of these ready-made materials of speech is a proof that man cannot be the crown of a long organic series. This potentiality of forming roots is the great crux which materialists almost invariably avoid. 
Von Hartmann explains it as a manifestation of the "Unconscious," and admits its cogency versus mechanical Atheism. Hartmann is a fair representative of the Metaphysician and Idealist of the present age. 
The argument has never been met by the non-pantheistic Evolutionists. To say with Schmidt: "Forsooth are we to halt before the origin of language?" is an avowal of dogmatism and of speedy defeat. (Cf. his "Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism," p. 304.) 
We respect those men of science who, wise in their generation, say: "Prehistoric Past being utterly beyond our powers of direct observation, we are too honest, too devoted to the truth — or what we regard as truth — to speculate upon the unknown, giving out our unproven theories along with facts absolutely established in modern Science." . . . . "The borderland of (metaphysical) knowledge is best left to time, which is the best test as to truth" (A Modern Zoroastrian, p. 136). 
This is a wise and an honest sentence in the mouth of a materialist. But when a Haeckel, after just saying that "historical events of [663] as to time . . " having "occurred many millions of years ago, * . . . are for ever removed from direct observation," and that neither geology nor phylogeny † can or will "rise to the position of a real exact science," then insists on the development of all organisms — "from the lowest vertebrate to the highest, from Amphioxus to man" — we ask for a weightier proof than he can give. Mere "empirical sources of knowledge," so extolled by the author of "Anthropogeny" — when he has to be satisfied with the qualification for his own views — are not competent to settle problems lying beyond their domain; nor is it the province of exact science to place any reliance on them. ‡ If "empirical" — and Haeckel declares so himself repeatedly — then they are no better, nor any more reliable, in the sight of exact research, when extended into the remote past, than our Occult teachings of the East, both having to be placed on quite the same level. 
Nor are his phylogenetic and palingenetic speculations treated in any better way by the real scientists, than are our cyclic repetitions of the evolution of the Great in the minor races, and the original order of evolutions. For the province of exact, real Science, materialistic though it be, is to carefully avoid anything like guess-work, speculation which cannot be verified; in short, all suppression veri and all suggestio falsi. 
The business of the man of exact Science is to observe, each in his chosen department, the phenomena of nature; to record, tabulate, compare and classify the facts, down to the smallest minutiae which are presented to the observation of the senses with the help of all the exquisite mechanism that modern invention supplies, not by the aid of metaphysical flights of fancy. All that he has a legitimate right to do, is to correct by the assistance of physical instruments the [664] defects or illusions of his own coarser vision, auditory powers, and other senses. He has no right to trespass on the grounds of metaphysics and psychology. His duty is to verify and to rectify all the facts that fall under his direct observation; to profit by the experiences and mistakes of the Past in endeavouring to trace the working of a certain concatenation of cause and effects, which, but only by its constant and unvarying repetition, may be called A LAW. This it is which a man of science is expected to do, if he would become a teacher of men and remain true to his original programme of natural or physical sciences. Any side-way path from this royal road becomes speculation. 
Instead of keeping to this, what does many a so-called man of science do in these days? He rushes into the domains of pure metaphysics, while deriding it. He delights in rash conclusions and calls it "a deductive law from the inductive law" of a theory based upon and drawn out of the depths of his own consciousness: that consciousness being perverted by, and honeycombed with, one-sided materialism. 
He attempts to explain the "origin" of things, which are yet embosomed only in his own conceptions. He attacks spiritual beliefs and religious traditions millenniums old, and denounces everything, save his own hobbies, as superstition. He suggests theories of the Universe, a Cosmogony developed by blind, mechanical forces of nature alone, far more miraculous and impossible than even one based upon the assumption of fiat lux out of nihil — and tries to astonish the world by such a wild theory; which, being known to emanate from a scientific brain, is taken on blind faith as very scientific and the outcome of SCIENCE.“           S D   II 661-4
---------------     Footnote    [S D  II 663]       -------------------------
* It thus appears that in its anxiety to prove our noble descent from the catarrhine "baboon," Haeckel's school has pushed the times of pre-historic man millions of years back. (See "Pedigree of Man," p. 273.) Occultists, render thanks to science for such corroboration of our claims! 
† This seems a poor compliment to pay Geology, which is not a speculative but as exact a science as astronomy — save, perhaps its too risky chronological speculations. It is mainly a "Descriptive" as opposed to an "Abstract" Science. 
‡ Such newly-coined words as "perigenesis of plastids," "plastidule Souls" (!), and others less comely, invented by Haeckel, may be very learned and correct in so far as they may express very graphically the ideas in his own vivid fancy. As a fact, however, they remain for his less imaginative colleagues painfully caenogenetic — to use his own terminology; i.e., for true Science they are spurious speculations so long as they are derived from "empirical sources." Therefore, when he seeks to prove that "the origin of man from other mammals, and most directly from the catarrhine ape, is a deductive law that follows necessarily from the inductive law of the theory of descent" ("Anthropogeny," p. 392) — his no less learned foes (du Bois-Reymond — for one) have a right to see in this sentence a mere jugglery of words; a "testimonium paupertatis of natural science" — as he himself complains, calling them, in return, ignoramuses (see "Pedigree of Man," Notes). 
-----Original Message-----
From: Aspasia 
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 
Subject: [bn-study] 	RE: contemplation / meditation

"Words are symbols and a symbol illustrates one single and special idea,
while an emblem “comprises a larger series of thoughts than a symbol” HPB
says in “Symbolism and Ideographs”. (SD I, 305) 

“To clear up an ambiguity as to the term language:  Primarily the word means
the expression of ideas by human speech; but, secondarily, it may mean the
expression of ideas by any other instrumentality. A picture of something
natural may give rise to ideas of coordinative subject-matter, radiating
out in various and even opposing directions, like the spokes of a wheel, and
producing natural realities in departments very foreign to the apparent
tendency of the reading of the first or starting picture.  Notion may give
rise to connected notion, but if it does, then, however apparently
incongruous, all resulting ideas must spring from the original picture and
be harmonically connected, or related. . . . Thus with a pictured idea
radical enough, the imagination of the Cosmos itself even in its details of
construction might result … (SD I, 309)

In Stanza VI, she gives the mystical significance of the Sound-Vach and the
way that Cosmos manifests expanded in four aspects from the Initial Sound.
The four aspects correspond to the four planes of objectivity, each one
representing one state of differentiation. (see diagram No 3, SD I, 200)

 “The explanation I am going to give you will appear thoroughly mystical;
but if mystical, it has a tremendous significance when properly understood.
Our old writers said that Vach is of four kinds (see Rig Veda and the
Upanishads).  Vaikhari-Vach is what we utter.  Every kind of Vaikhari-Vach
exists in its Madhyama, further in its Pasyanti, and ultimately in its Para
form. The reason why this Pranava is called Vach is this, that the four
principles of the great Kosmos correspond to these four forms of Vach.  Now
the whole manifested solar System exists in its Sukshma form in the light or
energy of the Logos, because its energy is caught up and transferred to
Cosmic matter. . . The whole Kosmos in its objective form is Vaikhari-Vach,
the light of the Logos is the Madhyama form, and the Logos itself the
Pasyanti form, and Parabrahm the Para form or aspect of that Vach.  It is by
the light of this explanation that we must try to understand certain
statements made by various philosophers to the effect that the manifested
Kosmos is the Verbum manifested as Kosmos”.
	(SD I, 138, Stanza VI, 	Our World its Growth and Development)
In HPB article: 

	(Blavatsky:  COLLECTED WORKS, Vol.  14, p. 96 - 102
		[posthumous publication ? ]

	HPB refers to: 

“The Devanagari… characters in which Sanskrit is generally
written, have all that the Hermetic, Chaldaean and Hebrew alphabets have,
and in addition the Occult significance of the “eternal sound,” and the
meaning given to every letter in its relation to spiritual as well as
terrestrial things. As there are only twenty-two letters in the Hebrew
alphabet and ten fundamental numbers, while in the Devanāgarī there are
thirty-five consonants and [fourteen] vowels, making altogether [forty-nine]
simple letters [or 7 x 7], with numberless combinations in addition, the
margin for speculation and knowledge is in proportion considerably wider.
Every letter has its equivalent in other languages, and its equivalent in a
figure or figures of the calculation table. It has also numerous other
significations, which depend upon the special idiosyncrasies and
characteristics of the person, object, or subject to be studied...” 
	(Blavatsky:  COLLECTED WORKS, Vol.  14, p. 96  
		(posthumous ?))

	On "Meditation" 
1. Fixing the mind on a place, object, or subject is attention. 
This is called Dharana. 
2. The continuance of this attention is contemplation. 
This is called Dhyana. 
3. This contemplation, when it is practised only in respect to a material
subject or object of sense, is meditation. 
This is called Samadhi. 
4. When this fixedness of attention, contemplation, and meditation are
practised with respect to one object, they together constitute what is
called Sanyama. We have no word in English corresponding to Sanyama...
5. By rendering Sanyama—or the operation of fixed attention, contemplation,
and meditation—natural and easy, an accurate discerning power is developed. 
6. Sanyama is to be used in proceeding step by step in overcoming all
modifications of the mind, from the more apparent to those the most subtle.
7. The three practices—attention, contemplation, and meditation—are more
efficacious for the attainment of that kind of meditation called, "that in
which there is distinct cognition," than the first five means heretofore
described as "not killing, veracity, not stealing, continence, and not
coveting." …….
8. Attention, contemplation, and meditation are anterior to and not
immediately productive of that kind of meditation in which the distinct
cognition of the object is lost, which is called meditation without a seed. 
9. There are two trains of self-reproductive thought, the first of which
results from the mind being modified and shifted by the object or subject
contemplated; the second, when it is passing from that modification and is
becoming engaged only with the truth itself; at the moment when the first is
subdued and the mind is just becoming intent, it. is concerned in both of
those two trains of self-reproductive thought, and this state is technically
called Nirodha. 
10. In that state of meditation which has been called Nirodha, the mind has
an uniform flow. 
11. When the mind has overcome and fully controlled its natural inclination
to consider diverse objects, and begins to become intent upon a single one,
meditation is said to be reached. 
12. When the mind, after becoming fixed upon a single object, has ceased to
be concerned in any thought about the condition, qualities, or relations of
the thing thought of, but is absolutely fastened upon the object itself, it
is then said to be intent upon a single point—a state technically called
13. The three major classes of perception regarding the characteristic
property, distinctive mark or use, and possible changes of use or relation,
of any object or organ of the body contemplated by the mind, have been
sufficiently explained by the foregoing exposition of the manner in which
the mind is modified.……
14. The properties of an object presented to the mind are: first, those
which have been considered and dismissed from view; second, those under
consideration; and third, that which is incapable of denomination because it
is not special, but common to all matter.… 
15. The alterations in the order of the three-fold mental modifications
before described, indicate to the ascetic the variety of changes which a
characteristic property is to undergo when contemplated. 
16. A knowledge of past and future events comes to an ascetic from his
performing Sanyama in respect to the three-fold mental modifications just


	Dictionaries say:
 1. Continuous and profound contemplation or musing
 on a subject or  series of subjects of a deep or abstruse nature
 i.e., "the habit of  meditation is the basis for all real knowledge." -
            Word Web
 2 (religion) contemplation of spiritual matters
 (usually on religious  or philosophical subjects). - Word Web
 From Latin meditari, probably cognate with Latin
 mederi, to heal. -   Chambers

 1. A long and thoughtful observation. - Word Web 2.
 A calm lengthy  intent consideration. - Word Web
 From Latin contemplari, -atus, to mark out carefully
 a templum or  place for auguries, from con- (signifying
 completeness) and templum. - Chambers
 [ Note: Would not "contemplation" be careful review and
 thinking about the  results of one's MEDIATION ?  DTB ]



[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application