Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00132)

Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>
> Jan 14TH 1997
>
> If we read the "Secret Doctrine" from p. 14 to 18 (Vol. I) we find that HPB
> does not involve the "Unmanifest (ed)' in Maya.  That is unless you use the
> word "unmanifested" to mean not visible to us as we are at present using
> the physical senses.  If you mean for instance, the astral," or the
> "psychic," or the "mental," or the "spiritual" senses, each of those on its
> own plane, then they are "mayavic" or "temporary."
>
> Generally as I read in Theosophy the term "Unmanifested" relates to the
> ABSOLUTE or to ABSOLUTENESS, which is a logical necessity, a background
> from which any "manifestation" (or MAYA) emanates.
>
>                 Dallas TenBroeck
>
> dalval@nwc.net                        (818) 222-8024
>                    23145 Park Contessa,
>             Calabasas, Ca., 91302, USA.
> =====================================================
> ---------

Dallas,
In my concept of IS is all there is parallels the Absolute.  For me, the
IS or Absolute incompasses before, now, and past.

Hee, Hee, I'm amused at references to SD vol # page #.  I recall my
first experiences with SD was two volumes,  My copy is 5 volumes with a
lot of commentary in the front.  The Book of Dzyan, Stanza 1 begins on
page 91 then the translation into understanding of the terms in the
stanzas, then there is the beginning of the Commentaries beginning with
Stanza 1, line 1 on page 110

I think we are close to parallel on our thinking...just semantics
ALL - IS - ABSOLUTE etc. ad infinitim  :)