Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00064)

Max talking to Nicholas:

> But, IMO, your list is incomplete, there is a crucial omission:
> applying one's own intuition.  Failure to do that (i.e.  to
> strain intuition) will lead to dogmatism, repeated stumbling over
> apparent contradictions, etc., (as is clearly seen from Hume and
> Sinnett's letters to the Mahatmas) given the fact that the system
> as we know it is incomplete and full of blinds.

Let me throw in a couple of x cents worth:

The system as we know it is incomplete: indeed, very much so.
Full of blinds: sure - some of these were resolved in HPB's
esoteric instructions (which is probably only a beginning of a
new veil..)

About atman: Blavatsky (I'll abbreviate her name as HPB) has
given to us a system of a sevenfold division of man (and what
I've seen from Rich is only the exoteric version, which he used
to compare it with Leadbeater's version).

The esoteric version speaks about three principles and four
aspects, but whether this is 'the final version' is open to
discussion.

G.de Purucker, who has made HPB more understandable remarks that
she also alludes to a tenfold system.  I don't know where she
does this (when the BCW are on CD-rom it will be easier to find,
I guess), but it makes sense (she is purported to have said that
ten is the perfect number, something that Pythagoras adhered to).

I just looked it up in her esoteric instructions and she talks
about three hypostases of atman (plus one which pertains to the
'touching' of nature and man - this makes four: a tetractys -the
Higher Self).  This is all arupa (for us!) of course, and
corresponds to a Logoic 'triad'-which is One.

Now, besides the fact that G de P has given his famous
'egg-scheme' which shows ten principles,just in accord with the
above, he makes a very interesting remark to the student of the
esoteric philosophy:

(I reversely translate from the Dutch edition of the
~fundamentals of the esoteric philosophy~) : 'There are no
absolutes.  We speak about absolutes, but only in a *relative*
sense.  ' and : 'Everything stands in a certain relation (in
quality, space and time) to something *else*, and it can not be
different, unless we want to let go of all logic and common
sense.'

(from p.  204, ch.18, original English edition).

He goes on for a while about this theme (relativity) - well, one
can read it for oneself, the book is on the web now.  The essence
boils down to this: There are an infinite number of hierarchies
(metaphysically, the top of each is symbolized by the number 1 -
the number 0 being reserved for 'absoluteness' (if I translate
this term correctly) which is all and not all, etc.- beyond our
ken).

So, atman is a relative absolute and certainly not the end or
beginning of all - a point which finds support by the fact that
one can find in Hindu literature the terms/concepts : paramatman
and parabrahman.  Note the word *para* - meaning *beyond* - there
is always a beyond, more inner or outer layer /plane/sphere of
existence! How can it be else? Infinite varieties and
manifestations.

Atman *is* however, the beginning or top of a hierarchy.  All
this stuff pertains to the doctrine of emanations (and
hierarchies) of which we know very little (G de P has written an
interesting booklet about it).

Now, I don't know enough of Leadbeater to say anything sensible
about his writings.  Bailey I read/studied ages ago; I remember
some book about the return of the Christ and that one is a bit
silly, I think.

Lastly, I agree with Maxim when he pointed out that the keyword
is *intuition* (or buddhi ).  Dead letter interpretation will
make a dogmatist of the student and, possibly,a fanatic.

Martin