Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00046)

>
>Re duality.
>
>Is duality simply (or not so simply) an illusion?
>
>Oneness IS.
>
>Paul.

YES.

The SD is in TWO volumes (not 3, 4 (not 4) or 6)
Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis.
Symbolising this dual nature of Manas?
And this task (Manas upwards to *Buddhi*) is the one humanity is about at
the moment (4th round/5th race).

What a good idea of yours Martin, to suggest some study - Thanks

Tony


>
>> 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.