This effort is the outcome of a talk given to the Theosophical Society Brisbane Lodge, in which I couldn't cover the whole topic the way it was meant. Partly because of the interruptions that occurred because of the nature of personal opinion within the audience, partly because in my attempt to introduce people to something new, I seemingly lost them from the beginning. There was a lot of disappointment because I didn't quote from the books that people would normally read, and so I didn't live up to people's expectations. People are afraid to look at something without prior knowledge of the subject, without some kind of 'I know what you are talking about' smile. And according to what they already know, they agree or disagree with the speaker. That seems to be the way in which people are trying to seek the Truth (at least some of them).

This time, my approach is dual. I will quote for those who like to be using references, and I will also speak freely to those who don't care about Gurus and Masters, but seek to be a Light unto themselves.

Introduction.

Many people go through life seemingly happy, although the state of humanity proves otherwise. The pursuit of happiness, as described by Thomas Jefferson in his speech at the launch of the American Constitution seems to be a universal theme. How people pursue happiness, what they perceive happiness to be, is an individual rather than a collective thing. Yet, beyond the everyday choirs, achievements and pursuits, there seems to be something missing, something deep and soothing, something that some humans have detected as being present yet illusive. Those striving for it often meet with disappointment or sadly, meet with mental disorders of various kinds. Some, after many years of effort, give it up completely, and find pleasure in some pursuits of material kind. A few, if any, get to a state where the the secret is revealed. They talk of a 'timelessness', of a state where duality disappears, where perception is clear, no longer manufactured and distorted. How do they do it? What is so special about those people? The questions of 'how' never seem to cease, day or night. Various sects and groups have devised methods as to achieve the 'desired' state, and the followers flock to the Gurus, the teachers. Between danger and madness, hangs the human attempt to get a glimpse of Freedom, Liberation, Enlightenment. Countless books have been written, and with the answer at hand, some people become disciples of knowledge, arguing between themselves as to what is Truth, Reality and the like. Opinion is the cheapest commodity on the market, as one observer said. People group into camps on grounds of common knowledge, and delight among themselves at what the books and their content have to offer. Sharing their experiences and upholding each others beliefs, they strengthen the power of the written word beyond imagination. Their defense of the knowledge they have acquired is frightening, if anything. More books follow, quoting those previously written and the web of knowledge thickens as time goes on. But people have to realize that the book is not the source, the source is yet to be discovered, the book may contain 'hints', at times may be more confusing than enlightening. The book is not the Truth, far from it!

Some impediments to questioning.

Before any attempt is made at questioning anything, we have to be clear about what are we doing. Where are we starting from. What is it that we want to achieve, if anything. Is it achievable? Are we looking for ourselves, or merely following somebody's opinion? And the bottom question is: How would I know if I have achieved that which is True, when I have never experienced it before? How am I going to recognize it, to say 'this is it'? Are the means the same as the end, or different? One has to be clear that the means and the end are one, that violence never begets peace, that resentments never begets forgiveness, that greed never begets contentment. So the other fundamental question is: by what means are we going to approach this exercise?

Another thing that people have to come to terms with is that Truth is not containable. Not a book or a million books can express it, contain it or describe it. To do so, it would mean to limit the Truth, to make it into something like a commodity, to be sold, inherited and passed on. Anything that has a beginning, has to have an end. To bring Truth in the concrete world is a fallacy. To own it, is madness. To speak of it is futile. Yet, it can be experienced, so we are told. Do we have to believe that, or can we find that out by ourselves? And again, how is it that we may get to it? How do we know where to start and which direction to take?

The mind is very quick to explain, rationalize anything. We ask a question, and we seem to find an answer at any costs. But are the question and the answer addressing the Truth, or are they merely for entertainment? What sort of a question can we formulate, in order to get to the Truth? Where is the question born? What is the ground from which the question arises? Is it fear? Is it greed? Is it anxiety? Is it pain? Suffering? Sadness? Boredom?

Whatever is born of the ground, goes back into the ground, forming a closed circle. The circle being closed, is self-serving. The perfect definition of selfishness. The means is the end. What is the ground?

Can we define what we are looking for? Is Truth definable? If we can define it, what is the ground from where the definition is born? Knowledge? Experience? Expectation?

On what basis do we define the Truth? What is the means of definition? What does it mean to define, to identify, to give birth to an identity? On what grounds do we identify? According to whom is the identity given?

What is involved in the process of objectification, identity formation? Can we measure the Truth? According to a source in Theosophy, Maya means 'to measure out'. Interesting?

The question of meaning.

When we question something, we normally ask: What does 'this' mean? What is it? Well, let's look at the word 'meaning'. The Oxford Dictionary says: 'from Latin, medianus, medius, middle, at the middle point, lying between, at neither extreme, that by which something is brought about (understanding?).

Another explanation is 'to have in mind, to intend, that which is intended (to convey), the thought that a word raises in the mind.

Is meaning constructed, or does it have to be discovered? Can the book convey the 'meaning' of something, or do we have to seek the meaning by ourselves? If the meaning is that which is 'lying between', what is it? Is meaning nothing other than relationship? How do I relate to something? What is the means of relationship? (Between people, people and objects?). Is the means greed, self interest, fear, violence? What is that which connects me with something else?

If we look seriously, we can find out that we construct meaning, construct our relationship with things by identification. We identify something, name it and the very act of identification brings with it the meaning, the relationship with that thing. If we describe someone as an 'enemy', then the relationship is defined, we 'know' how to deal with an enemy. Expectation arises out of the act. We expect the 'enemy' to do something terrible, we prepare to defend ourselves, we avoid the person, etc. Thus, the actions we undertake towards that person are 'predetermined', and keep this in mind, it has a lot to do wit Karma.

If we, on the contrary, identify somebody as a 'friend', the meaning of the word is somebody helpful, friendly, smiling, and we expect good things from the person. Our actions are predetermined, in a positive way.

Desire is thus born. Desire to attract the good and keep the bad at bay.

In both cases, there is no freedom to act. Keep this in mind also. Not for long, though. Is good to have an opinion for the moment (is it?), but is not advisable to wake up with it tomorrow.

To define is to confine, to predetermine, to know in advance. This is clear. The relationship is concrete, set, immutable (or hard to change).

The act of defining, of identity formation, implies to objectify, to concretize, to divide. The knower and the known. The known is born of the knower, thus the knower is the known, the seer is the seen, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (not in the world of form, I am obviously the fence I am looking at). But in terms of identification, the identifier is the identified, that is, in terms of perception, the perceiver is the perceived. "I am Alfa and Omega, that which is, was and is to come", the beginning and the end, the cause and the effect. Yet, few of us are aware of this simple fact. The Theosophical Masters, in one of their letters, state that "duality is not real, it doesn't in fact exist". It is perhaps correct (?) to substitute duality with 'togetherness'. The two, are the basis of conflict, one is trying to modify the other, to control, to subdue, etc. Effort that is in vain. Is just like trying to change the person in the mirror, but that person is me, only I refuse to change, I insist that the person in the mirror should change!

Out of this duality, the cause-effect state, the questions of freedom arise! The question of Enlightenment! And in fact, Blavatsky mentions that Karma has something to do with the pineal gland, something that she doesn't say anymore about. I say, (?) that the action of objectification closes the gland, and maintains duality. When objectifying stops, the gland will open, the pituitary will open and the Reality restored. But don't take it as proof, it is only words! Find out for yourselves!

From the Known to the Unknown.

Somebody once said: "In order to get far, we must start near." That means, we must start with what we know. Where we are. What do we in fact, know? What is knowledge? Who am I? What is the process of knowing? How do we know something?  In terms of what do we know? What is the basis for knowing? What is the ground of knowing? Well, the answer is obvious, it is knowledge. Knowledge is the source of knowing. Now, the question is, if the means of knowing is knowledge (as it follows, the means is the end, which is the source ) the answer will also be more knowledge. It is a self--serving mechanism, in which opinion is born, and an act of selfishness is born, knowledge sees only itself, its products, its means and ends. From knowledge only further knowledge is born. Knowledge begets knowledge. Self-opinion is blindness. Narrow-mindedness. Illusion (it is a fact, but not true, not real).

What is the source of knowledge (if we are looking for the source of things)? Where does knowledge come from? Experience! Past. Memory. Remember that what is born is subject to death! Now, if I ask myself the question "who am I", how would I answer that? Try it! See what happens.

Now, we must ask: Is the Truth to be found in knowledge? Obviously, we saw that in knowledge we can only find knowledge. Does knowledge contain the Truth? Obviously not, we discussed it before, Truth cannot be contained, it is not a thing, but in our nescience, we concretize it, we bring it from the Unknown to the Known, and we transform it from 'what it is' to what we think it is. Thought is the mechanism of using knowledge. thought works in duality, by comparison and measurement. Thus, we lose it and remain with a bitter taste in our 'mouth'. With an impression, an opinion. the more we try to bring it down to the concrete world of thought, the more we fail miserably, we feel like we are at the 'gate' but cannot enter. Funny that the gate comes in, there is a story about a monk who did, according to his opinion, all the good things he had to in order to go to 'heaven'. At the gate, he knocked three times, and a voice spoke: 'Who are you'? The monk said he is such and such, he did all those things he had to do righteously and he deserves a place in 'heaven'. The gate did not open. He remained there for a while, and after sometime, knocked again. The voice repeated the question and this time he only gave his name. The gate remained closed. He remained for some time puzzled, and after deep introspection, knocked for the third time. 'Who is it'? the voice enquired. This time, he remained silent. 'You may come in', the voice replied.

If the source of Truth is not in knowledge, we must progress. Where is it? If knowledge or knowing is not the tool of inquiry, what then? We normally expect another tool, another method. But wait! What happens when we realize that knowledge cannot offer us the means to Truth? What happens to the seeking activity that seeks? What happens when we can see that the question arises from knowledge? That what arises from knowledge can only be answered in terms of knowledge? That we want to know? That knowing implies concrete, limited looking? That knowing implies knowledge, the known, I? We find that knowledge cannot go beyond itself! It is limited to itself! Forever its own prisoner, self-contained! What is born from the ground must go back into the ground! I once said to a group: 'The object of consciousness is the limit of consciousness'. Beyond knowledge, there is death! Death of the known, the world of the Unknown! Not nothingness, chaos and terror, but simply that knowledge has no place there, it cannot set foot in the Unknown. The Unknown is the Unborn, the Deathless! But knowledge, in it's deceptive way, tries to set a foothold in there as well, and traps are easily set to the ones who are blind! The sensorial mind has no place in the Unknown! It cannot experience the unknown in terms of sensation, yet the unknown can be experienced!

Where do we go wrong? If we witness something, we want to retain some of the event. Why? What is the use of retention? How does it happen? How do we retain it?

The brain, is a chemical compound, its function is to a certain extent known to psychologists, the neurotransmitters being the messengers from one part to another. Sensation is a physical thing. But why bring out something, down to the sensorial level? How do we do it? By creating an image of it! The sensorial mind works at the concrete level. The level of form, dimension, time. Experience is measured in time, how long it lasts! Experience being sensorial, can only last for a while. When we objectify something, we liken it to previous experiences, to sensations, and we lose the 'real' by the very act of objectifying. We distance ourselves from the Real, the distance between us and the Real being created by the 'meaning' of the real. Basically, when we put a meaning to something, we actually lose the Real altogether. We are inside experience, sensorial and knowledge. But the Real is beyond the sensorial. We are left with a sensorial impression of what occurred. The sensorial imprint becomes pleasure, the lack of the sensorial is pain (psychological). The pleasure then has to be repeated, because it fades, the physical glands (endorphins) can only last for a while. Where the Real, Beauty and Happiness, does not have to be repeated, it is here free, but cannot be possessed! Cannot be stored, captured, contained. It is non-material, where the brain and the senses are material.

When the fact of the useless attempt to know the Truth is realized, something happens to the senses. They are freed from craving, from desire! The sensorial mind, the 'I' is gone! The need for experiencing in terms of the known is gone! So is the attachment to the concrete world! A new world opens, beyond description! There is no describer, in what terms should one describe it, when the tool of description is gone? It is there! And there is no attempt to 'know' it, because there is no desire to know it! It is not objective, nor subjective. It is always aplenty, but fathomless, measureless, timeless! It cannot be likened to anything, because in the very process, we are back in knowledge. It is causeless, but the mind, which only works in cause-effect dimension, looks for a cause to it. It wants to get to the cause, take over and anytime it needs a shot of 'reality', it simply goes to the cause and gets one! How deceptive! How often do we say:'You make me angry, you make me happy, I love you, etc.' We objectify the cause, when the cause is us, me, I. We are the cause and the effect, I am the anger and the angry. I made myself that, in my ignorance of events. If we would not divide the feeling, we would not distance from the feeling, something extraordinary would happen. But we don't. The 'you' does not exist as a thing in perception, it is only a physical organism. The 'you', if it exists, it is not real, it is born of 'I', of knowledge, but look at the things we do to each other, if we would only know that we do them to ourselves! We are one! Yet, anything wrong in us is projected onto the 'you', and the conflict starts! We even talk on behalf of 'you' in groups, that way we are exempt from criticism! If only we could see that 'I' only talks on behalf of itself, in its self-opinionated way!

Many times we experience something, but we feel we cannot touch it! We cannot touch the beauty of a sunset, yet in order to find the source of beauty, we think that if we attribute it to an object, a place,  something tangible, we can re-experience beauty by getting in touch with the 'object of beauty', happiness. That may be a person, a place, a song, anything sensorial and tangible. The beauty is not in the sunset, in the person, in the object. Beauty simply is! No cause! But the sensorial mind, used to the tangible world, wants to be able to touch it! To find a cause for it! And in deception, it does! It transforms beauty in pleasure, the formless into form, the freedom into desire and craving! But when the sensorial mind re-experiences the object, it is   pleasure that it re-experiences! And sensation is short-lasting, hence craving is unsatiable. Time comes into being, the measure of sensorial experience, its beginning, end and greed for more! Sensation, being a material process, it is time-bound. Matter, form that is, is bound to change, beginning and end. Yet, being attached to the concrete world in order to feed our sensorial craving for experience, we are falling into what? Into Karma? Cycle of death and birth? Bound to the world of time, pleasure and pain, duality, and all that? Just because we are blind not to see what is happening, what we are doing, enslaving ourselves for the sake of pleasure, craving, when a world of beauty and freedom is at hand? Are we so blind that we don't see what greed and craving does to the world in which we live in? How trivial we are in seeking pleasure when beauty and freedom is boundless?

Karma. What is it?

For the bookworms, there is a Theosophical Page that deals with Karma, and it contains about 22 articles in-depth on karma, authored by people like Blavatsky and dePurucker (to name just a few).

For those who like to be secure and have a source of reference, I quote from Mme. Blavatsky :

"The one Life is closely related to the One Law which governs the World of Being-Karma. Exoterically, this is simply and literally 'action', or rather an 'effect-producing cause' (The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 1. p.634). She goes on saying: "This state (Karmic) will last till man's spiritual intuitions are fully opened, which will not happen before we fairly cast off our thick coates of matter; until we begin acting from within, instead of ever following impulses from without; namely those produced by our physical senses and gross selfish body" (p.644).

"Karma creates nothing, nor does it design. It is man who plants and creates causes, and karmic law adjust the effects, which adjustment is not an act, but universal harmony, tending ever to resume it's original position, like a bough, which, when bent down, too forcibly, rebounds with corresponding vigor" (Karma Lore 1, p.20).

Karma is taken to be as cause and effect. But is the cause different from the effect? The Bhuddhist Teachings say that whoever can see the cause and effect simultaneously, he (she) can transcend Karma, being free of it.

What we do, we do unto ourselves, but we don't see that. We sow fear and expect love. We are truly ignorant of facts, we would rather take refuge in a book, in a belief, in something that comforts us.

What of karma? If one stayed awake through this page, one would need not ask anymore. We don't see that we hate, we see only the person we hate, and we come up with a good reason why. We don't see the act for the object. We attribute our own defects to those around us, and don't see the destruction we do to our psyche by allowing hate, greed, fear to reside in our selves. And we always find a good reason to do so, by finding an objective excuse to maintain the status quo. And the madness goes on....

I didn't seek to disappoint the ones who like quotations from books, their books are still available.....