Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00043)

Re duality.

Is duality simply (or not so simply) an illusion?

Oneness IS.

Paul.

> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>