formless – Dreamyoga

If you have swung by the blog from time to time you will be aware that I have read what I call the Blue Books opus written by Alice Bailey and Djwhal Kuhl. The idea being that the transfer of content was by some form of telepathic mind-dump from Kuhl. You may also be aware that I comment of self-diagnosed omniscience suggesting that such a diagnosis is at best premature. I am pretty sure that many a “scientist” imagines that there is not a lot beyond his or her ken. And anything which is, is probably made up shit so not real. Most physical scientists, me included, can get a gist-grasp of the standard model of cosmogenesis. Few would accept that it is possible to talk with the Korrigans down by the river. Were I to claim such a thing then I must adopt my Whacko McNutjob persona. For some, things “beyond ken” is a DNC, a does not compute, it can mean imaginary or fantasy.

–

–

Not everyone has a closed mind.

In the opus Kuhl suggests that during initiation the matter of the physical vehicle for the incarnated being is adjusted by the application of a wand or rod of initiation. The detail provided is sketchy and the nature of the forces involved ill explained. In order for the indwelling consciousness to evolve the vehicle needs a kind of upgrade to enable. This suggests that lifetime after lifetime for an initiate the vehicle need to be boosted and upgraded. A third degree initiate must therefore suffer or receive the first and second upgrades before the third, each life time. This is implied but not specified.

The opus discusses little about what happens when the incarnating Jiva is not in meat. He does not dwell on the intermediate or Arupa formless state. He says that many of the masters have no need of form so they “exist” without form {for aeons}. Philosophically it is interesting to note that the entire notion of physical time implies matter. Is immaterial time different, can it too be measured with an atomic clock? The implications is that time out of meat is “longer” than time in meat, measured in planet earth days.

What are the discarnate rules? Who is in charge? What happens, what occurs? What does one experience?

Kuhl is very scant on the abilities of initiates and masters for perhaps a number of motives. One of these being the problems caused by over active imaginations and another being that he does not want to show off or list. Similarly he touches on the abilities of the dark adepts but does not formally discuss the black ritual magic they apply. In a global clarity based view there is no need for specific clarity details unless to convey a particular thought form with example. He also does not want dangerous knowledge falling into the wrong hands.

He mentions the Sanat Kumara in whose thought form, the planet Earth, those of us who are as yet meaty, abide. The scope of a being able to envision a planetary scale must be vast. Way bigger than a white bearded dude on a cloud with his tackle hanging out. Such a notion must be by definition beyond a human ken. The dream of the Sanat Kumara is the dream in which we live and have our being.

If it is beyond your ken does that mean that it cannot be real?

The implication being that if you are messing with a Sanat Kumara, you are considerably out of your depth and “he” could enact something of a global or plate tectonic scale. The Richter scale would not have sufficient dynamic range. We have seen the impact of a “minor” tsunami at Fukushima. A subducting plate could easily produce large amplitude motions.

Without six sigma proof many would deny that such a being as a Sanat Kumara exists.

One of the main things that Kuhl omits is the growing human obsession with this notion of proof. Philosophically it is clear to see that in an absence of theorem proof does not exist. Therefore proof is an entirely mental construct. A construct which is manufactured by humans and therefore as equally impermanent as they are.

The world Kuhl describes in his work with Bailey is a pre-1960s world. That world has change vastly. There has probably been more change in the last 65 years than perhaps in the millennium before. Whatever he discussed was based upon the scope of human knowledge then. It has changed since. The arrival of Zoom and Teams has rendered the need for telepathic communication obsolete.

Humans have always been arrogant about how much they know. Generation after generation that confidence in the completeness of their own knowledge has been seen to be ill-founded. Kuhl does not speculate in detail how things might change in the sixty odd years after his opus. He does speculate on the nature of reincarnation and the externalisation of the so-called hierarchy. His blueprint is a best guess snapshot for how things were then. It is accurate to say that things have changed. Some truths however are immutable.

The work, the opus, is comprehensive. To my mind, the mind that could hold and verbalise that has to have scope and prowess, an intellect of considerable capacity.

If you type various versions of this question into Google you see that there are people discussing it on line. I have even seen articles on Buddhism which states that the goal is to achieve nirvāṇa. Buddhism does not have KPIs and personal development planning, nor does your line manager tear you off a strip if you don’t achieve your goals.

I’ll speculate whoever considers nirvāṇa a goal is a long way indeed from said goal. He is in a gaol of Western thinking.

In various school of thought nirvāṇa is when the causal vehicle {Soul or reincarnating Jiva} has been blown off. This means there is no requirement to reincarnate, a strictly human thing. Humans are “bound” to the wheel of rebirth. Someone, some being, who has done that, nirvāṇa, is strictly speaking no longer human. In the context at death the being who has attained nirvāṇa achieves the state of parinirvāṇa at the dissolution of the meaty incarnate form. Thereafter “they” remain formless.

We could get into the gender debate about pronouns. What pronouns do you use for some entity which has no body, no observable physical plane presence? What is the correct pronoun for a fully enlightened Buddha? It?

The problem I have with enlightenment as a concept is that is enlightenment an absolute or a relative term? It might be said that someone got enlightenment, does that mean that they are a fully enlightened Buddha or does it mean that they are little less heavy than before. They have attained a quantum of enlightenment, a bit, one step further up the ladder. They are lighter, less dark and thereby enlightened. To progress one gains enlightenment in a stepwise fashion, realisation by realisation. At nirvāṇa the being is lighter because it no longer has a causal vehicle or personality, notions of self have dissolved. It is enlightened, unburdened.

There is the concept of returning high attainment Bodhisattvas, who on death put off the attainment of parinirvāṇa and come back of their own free will to teach. Because they have no causal vehicle, they create a nirmāṇakāya emanation for such a purpose. If I understand it correctly there may be many of these in the Tulku tradition. Arhats can be seen as selfish because they do not come back. But that is a transference of human personality onto someone who has no self. I have seen it prejudiced that Bodhisattvas are good, and Arhats not so. Human folly, methinks.

In esoteric thinking the end of the causal vehicle comes at the fourth initiation. If one cross references, this is nirvāṇa or blowing off. If I understand it correctly this phenomenon is associated often with physical plane death {but not always}. One gets nirvāṇa and sharpish thereafter parinirvāṇa. In that school of thinking there are a few more stages of development, the other initiations, after doing what Siddartha did in getting planetary nirvāṇa.

One might rephrase the question, “how many fully enlightened beings are there?”

In the esoteric school of thought the fourth degree initiate goes on to take the fifth and become what some call masters. This happens, according to my reading, relatively soon.

I think most people would struggle to envision or envisage a “living” awareness or consciousness in the absence of a physical plane body. So, people invent worlds and dimensions or abodes where they might picture some enveloping form even if that be nebulous. The inventions are inspired by life on earth. Being superstitious people like signs and miracles as circumstantial evidence or proof of nirvāṇa or parinirvāṇa. There must be a rainbow or a comet. If it is a wholly natural part of evolution why would this happen? It is kind of no big deal. There is a desire for sanctity and holiness where they may just be a natural evolutionary process.

The question itself seeks to quantify and scale because people like to compare, to play top trumps.

“My God is better and more real than yours”, being a root of many wars.

Going a step further “are” implies existence or being. Can something exist if there is no form, no measurable lump of meat. If something is formless, is it?

Instead of quantifying we may now rephrase. “Are there enlightened beings?” “Do they exist?”

“It’s life Jim, but not as we know it!”

Astrobiology and astrochemistry are looking for life in a chemical-biological entity with a physical existence measurable by modern instrumentation. The assumption being that life can only exist in some kind of form, or particularly a corporeal form no matter how small. Science requires a form {and perhaps reproductive urge} as a basic component of life and its definition.

A formless Buddha after paranirvāṇa would not technically be alive according to human definition.

So maybe according to science enlightened beings do not exist.

The answer is therefore zero and not 42….

Which poses the ancillary question does, zero exist or not?

Tag: formless

Omissions in the Blue Books Opus

How Many Fully Enlightened People Are There?