Theos-Talk Archives (April 1999 Message tt00083)

In a message dated 4/6/99 4:33:29 PM, schuelergerald@optec-hq.optec.army.mil 
writes:

>Yes. This is, by definition, the only true monad - an individual
>indivisible non-aggragate unit. All others are expressions of it,
>and not true monads because they are divisible into components.
>The term "higher Ego" or higher self can mean many things,
>and is usually used loosely to refer to the Reincarnating Ego.
>Buddhi-Manas is the "spiritual monad" and is a ray or expression
>of the divine monad.  G de P uses the term human monad,
>but this not even close to an indivisble unit and I am not
>sure what it refers to anyway other than maybe the personality.
>The term human monad implies that every human being
>has an inner solid and substantial self, which is simply
>not so. So, I don't like that term and seldom use it.

This is a very loose interpretation of the One Unity (Monad--which is also 
triune) relating to the full three cycle loop of fundamental spin that must 
pass twice through the center point and once around the circumference in 
order to be a complete and endless field having no beginning and no end.  
Therefore the monad is the first field of consciousness that arises from the 
absolute at the beginning of the grreat cycle.  All reflections of that great 
field as the universe spins on down through it seven stages of manifestation 
are also "Monads".  On the human stage, the monad is the first three cycles 
reflected down from the inital Universal consciousness fieldd or great Self 
of all.  Therefore the humans self or monad is the integrally linked triple 
fields of Atma-Buddhi-Manas. See 
<A 
HREF="http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.ht
ml">Chakrafield diagram
</A>) 

To say that there is no self is also a loose "Westernized" interpretation of 
the Budhist teachings.  When asked if there was or was not a self Buddha , 
recognizing the paradoxical quandery he would put his students in, refused to 
answer.  Of course, as we think in the West--if there is no answer whether 
something (or concept) exists or not, it must, therefore, not exist.  
However, there is no question, from a subjective point of view that such a 
Self does exists, since it has equivalent causative and creative powers 
comparable to the Self of All or Adi Buddha Self. Just because we can't sense 
it, or measure it, (although we certainly do "experience" it) doesn't mean 
that it can't exist.  How can a field of action not exist?  This presumption, 
is endemic with both Western scientific thinking and Westernized or exoteric 
Buddhist thinking.   Such Monad or higher Self, has no relation whatsoever to 
the "personality" or lower self which is strictly a self created illusion.  
Thus, the teaching that Gerry promulgates claiming that self image and  

-- 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.