Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00253)

Dear Rich,

> In a message dated 3/17/99 2:22:25 PM, Peter wrote:
>
> <<I don't seem to have your problem with this word
> 'merge', or even the notion of 'merging into',
> 'attaining', or 'reaching' Nirvana.  In fact these
>  phrases are used over and over again in the
>  Secret Doctrine and in the Mahatma Letters when
>  HPB and the Mahatmas refer to Nirvana.  >>
>
> Fair enough Peter, and I think I was probably wrong to quibble over words.

Thanks Rich, - sometimes something just 'jumps out' at us in another persons
post, doesn't it?  It is a very difficult medium to communicate in.

You add:
> HPB and the Mahatmas were forced to use words in English that
> would make sense to Christianized ears.  I don't think we're
> in that position today.  Nirvana is explained much better in
> original Buddhist texts. (Yes, I'm aware that various
> reactionary Theosophical elements will now flame me for DARING to
> criticize the English usage of HPB and her teachers.)

I'm not sure I would agree with the "explained much better", at least not
for me.  But you are right in saying that HPB & the Mahatmas had to struggle
to find the language that would be understood at the time.

>  In any case, I think the essence of our little debate
>  is that you are taking the view of the individuality
>  which is IN manifestation, "looking up" as it were to
>  its source.  I am taking the view of the Source, which is
>  unperturbed by the variegated Mayavic display of manifestation.

Yes, that a good way of putting it, Rich.

>  From this point of view, however "high" Manasic
>  development may be, it is still transient, mayavic, and
>  ultimately unreal.

Agreed.  Challenging isn't it, that everything, even the most spiritual, in
this Universe is only 'temporary' and 'relatively real'!

> I frankly admit that in my day to day life I hardly
> ever hold the perspective of the Higher Self, but
> in meditation this is not so.

I think that's very worthwhile - to be able to have even that one inner
space where one can be in touch with the "Higher Self".

> Little Rich Taylor and his tiny little Manas is nothing
> in light of the unmanifest Atman, which is indeed
> above Karma, beyond causation, never wrapped up in the
> body or the concerns of the vehicles.

That reminds me of what HPB writes about Atman:

"As this [Atman] can neither be located nor limited in philosophy, being
simply that which is in Eternity, and which cannot be absent from even the
tiniest geometrical or mathematical point of the universe of matter or
substance, it ought not to be called, in truth, a "human" principle at all.
Rather, and at best, it is in Metaphysics, that point in space which the
human Monad and its vehicle man occupy for the period of every life. Now
that point is as imaginary as man himself, and in reality is an illusion, a
maya; but then for ourselves, as for other personal Egos, we are a reality
during that fit of illusion called life, and we have to take ourselves into
account, in our own fancy at any rate, if no one else does."

May the light of that 'awareness', of which you speak, increasingly permeate
your daily life.

Best wishes

Peter


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.