Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00036)

Just some thoughts on duality:

Are we certain dual means "two polar things ..."

OE Dictionary defenition: "Of or pertaining to two. Two-fold, double.
....Truth is often of a dual character. Tyndall"

Spirit and matter, but matter is spirit.

absolute abstract Space and absolute Abstract Motion can be seen as two
aspects of this "Be-ness." (SD.I,p.14).  Both essential to each other, but
do they have to be seen as opposite poles?

Key, page 92: "The future state and the Karmic destiny of man depend on
whether Manas gravitates more downward to Kama rupa, the seat of the animal
passions, or upwards to *Buddhi,* the Spiritual *Ego.*"

Could it be said here that Manas (its dual nature) is polarizing in Kama
rupa or Buddhi.  Not necessarily.  More downward ...or upward.

Tony

>>HPB as I read her, makes this duality between the INDIVIDUALITY
>>(Atma-Buddhi-Manas) and the Personality (kama-prana-astral and physical
>>bodies)
>>Clear not only in the KEY  but in the S D.
>>
>
>
>Dallas, I think the above quote touches on the reason that you (and many
>others) don't seem to understand much of what I say.  The individuality
>and personality do not make a duality in the proper sense of the word at
>all. A duality is two polar things/forces/ideas/principles that come into
>existence together and depend on each other (beauty-ugliness, high-low,
>big-little, male-female, and so on) like two sides of a coin (heads and
>tails are sometimes used to demonstrate the relationship between spirit
>and matter, for example). If "heads" goes away, it takes "tails" with it.
>Without "big" the concept of "little" is meaningless, and so on. Well,
>we can eliminate the personality while the individuality keeps right on
>going (the one is an expression of the other, not a polar opposite).
>Hope this helps, because in order for a discussion to get us anywhere,
>we will have to try to agree on the terms that we use. We can, for example,
>say that men/women have a dual constitution, but these two parts do not
>form a duality in the sense in which the term is normally used.
>
>Jerry S.
>
>
>
>