Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00283)

August 16th

Re:  the ABYSS

Dear Jerry:

Thanks for the help with the references.  I had not "caught" that in my net
so far.  You are also right in surmising that I have not studied Kabala in
depth, as I have been daunted by the statements that it has suffered much in
translation.  So since HPB (and the Masters behind her) draw on the
"Oriental Kabala" from which the Jewish K. was framed, I have put in a lot
of work on that.

It makes a difference.  Now I understand what you mean by "the abyss."  It
appears to be the first apparently disorganized primal condition of
manifestation, when the Universe in "germ" emanates from the ABSOLUTENESS.
In SD  Vol. I HPB goes into detail showing what happens next -- how it gets
organized under the karma of its past with the help of the Dhyani Buddhas
and the Dhyan Chohans, "Builders,"  etc....

I put in some notes below

Dal

> Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 12:33 PM
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya

>>Dear Jerry:
>>
>>It seems clear that some comments on both sides are not melding.
>>
>
>Why must they?
>
>
>>Where does HPB describe any "Abyss ?"
>>
>
>HPB writes:
>"Exoterically it (i.e., the word 'Kshetra') means simply--"field,"
>while esoterically it represents "the great abyss" of the
>Kabalists, the chaos and the plane (cteis or yoni), in which
>the creative energy implants the germ of the manifested universe.
>In other words they are the Purusha and Prakriti of Kapila,
>the blind and cripple producing motion by their union, Purusha
>supplying the head and Prakriti the limbs" (The Theosophist,
>Vol V, No. 5(53).
>
>This short passage clearly indicates that she was well aware
>of the Abyss of the Qabala (she would have had to). In the SD
>she shows her cyclic Globes against the Qabalistic Sephiroth
>and it is clear from that picture that the Abyss is located
>at the top of the fourth plane. The only reason that I can give
>for why Theosophists have been in the dark about the Abyss
>all these years is that apparently they don't study much Qabala.
>In the above passage, she indicates that the Abyss is actually
>a cosmic yoni, and her sexual innuendo here is quite plain.


I AGREE THAT IS SO FOR MYSELF
>
>
>>In several places HPB indicates that all the effort done on this
>>evolutionary side of manifestation (call it Mayavic if you will, since
>>materially it is indeed not "permanent") is totally lost at the end of
>>Manvantara ?  [ Particularly this is brought out in her brief article ISIS
>>UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA -- "Theosophist"  January 1886;  ULT HPB
>>ARTICLES III- 265 ]
>>
>
>Why does your first sentence end with a question mark?

NOT INTENTIONAL -- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELIDED BEFORE SENDING.


I agree that something survives each manvantara--its called the divine Monad
>and it survives because it is located outside of space-time and outside
>of our 7-plane solar system. Theosophists like to imagine that even
>the divine monad evolves,
================================
Dallas:

I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT ENTIRELY.  THERE IS A GROWTH OF AWARENESS AND THE
USAGE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THAT ASPECT OF THE MONAD (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) which
is ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPING CONSCOUSNESS OF THE EVOLVING ENTITY -- to
KAMA-MANAS as I understand it, butI could be wrong in this.  My question
here, is what is the purpose of the whole scheme if no accretions occur, if
no "enlightenment" is the result of so much effort to achieve self-control,
and self-purification, so that working with Nature and her Laws (Karma)
becomes automatic and voluntary in the evolving entity ?  How does this get
answered ?  What about all the SKANDHAS that are drawn together to form the
"personality" each lifetime ?  What happens to them ?  They also improve, do
they not ?

Dal

==============================================


but since it is outside of time, I can't see
>how it, or anything else outside of time, can evolve (the word itself
>means a progression over time and without time I cannot conceive
>of any "progress").
>
>I have already read HPB, Dallas, and I pretty much agree with her.
>Your quotes are unnecessary. It is obviously your interpretation of
>her writing that I have a problem with, as do you with mine.
>
>Jerry S.
===================================

Thaks Jerry            Dal

===================================
>