Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00429)

>The concept of "purpose" implies time. So does the concept of
>"evolution."
>

Agreed.

>Maybe, for "purposes" of discussion (sorry, couldn't resist) we could
>agree that while the point of view of the monad on its own plane is
>timeless and spaceless and "perfect", its ray sojourns in (mayavic) time
>and space.
>

Agreed.

>This seems to imply cycles of descent and ascent as well as the
>development of capabilities and relationships with the matter of those
>planes both as vehicles and environs, i.e., self-imposed limitations and
>inertial resistance.
>

Yes, and spirals within the circles.

>Maybe it's in that sense (of activity in mayavic time and space) that
>the doctrine of cycles can be seen as "spiralling."
>

Yes.

>I guess the tricky question is whether or not you hold the view that the
>Cosmic Monas Monadum (monad of monads, or manifested Cosmic Logos) is
>itself evolving from Mahamanvantaric cycle to cycle?
>

In a sense, I would agree with this. But in another sense, your "monad
of monads" is nothing more or less than any other monad. If you assume
that a "monad" is indivisible, spaceless, and timeless, than what is
the difference between any one monad and any other monad? None
at all as each is identical and takes up the same space at the same time
thus all are un-differentiable or indistinguishable (i.e., ONE=ALL).

>In stating "timeless things don't need a purpose, because they are
>already perfect," you seem to be saying "no." Or do I read you
>incorrectly?
>

I don't understand your question here. "Purpose" and "perfect" are
relative terms that only have meaning in our mayavic 7 plane solar
universe. From my view within our solar system, those things called
monads are perfect. I doubt that this view holds from their viewpoint.

>I hold the view that the only absolute perfection is the Boundless
>Unmanifest. Any Logoic manifestation (i.e., Cosmic Monas Monadum) is
>still a limited being, albeit cosmic in proportion. Therefore, it is
>still subject to evolution, even though it is the apogee for all that
>subsequently issues forth into and occurs within its system.
>

I understand what you are saying here, but remember that manifest
and unmanifest are two sides of a duality, much like Bound and
Boundless are. Truth or reality, if it is anything at all, transcends
both sides of all dualities.

>Does the fact that it manifests and persists for the duration of the
>Mahamanvantara mean that it exists in time, or not? Does it have karma?

Yes and yes.

>Is its Swabhava absolutely realized?

Here Theosophy differs from Buddhism. A good Theosophical
answer is yes, but a Buddhist would likely answer no because
Buddhists see Swabhava as a mayavic characteristic and
thus holds only for relative truth.

>Is each new manifestation from
>Mahapralaya exactly the same as it was all the other times before?

No. No two grains of sand are exactly the same.

> Does
>it acknowledge the Unknown? How does it view it's relationship to the
>Boundless from whence it issued? Thoughts?
>

Yes. As an I-Not-I monadic entity. The first or primordial duality of all
is subject (I) and object (Not-I). The rest comes from attempts of the I to
identity the first duality poles (i.e., itself and its world).

Thanks, Mark.

Jerry S.