Theos-Talk Archives (March 2000 Message tt00013)

Dallas offers:

If anyone can conceive of a negative THEN THE POSITIVE IS AT THE
CONTRASTING "OTHER END."

However, to be able to conceive of ONE SIDE of an equation,
implies that the CONCEIVER -- the THINKER is apart (DETACHED)
from the problem and is able to LOOK AT IT.

If one is to consider ANATMA or "non-spirit" then that which does
the considering is not limited or bound by the concept.  It is
ABLE TO CONSIDER it as an IDEA.  Is it right or wrong?  What can
be done with it?  How does it fit into known experience?  Is it
logical?  Why is it introduced or being considered?  etc...

On this basis the concept is inferior to the entity that is doing
the CONSIDERING, or am I wrong?

Example:

We are currently living in the multi-contrast area of
"evolution."

When this comes to an end "NON-MANIFESTATION" [PRALAYA or
MAHA-PRALAYA] sets in.  All contrasts end.

But Theosophy teaches this is not ANNIHILATION.

The IMMORTAL MONADS, each carry with them into this resting
period the entire memory of all that they have experienced.
(Similar to the after-death-states during Manifested stages of
living.)  And in any case, from the Universal point of view,
these memories are impacted in the imperishable AKASA.

All the memories of the work done during the active state are
carried into the inactive state and there preserved until the new
MANIFESTATION begins.  Then, under KARMA they re-emerge in due
time.

If one desires to give a Negative connotation to "spirit out of
manifestation" it might be called anatma.  But that does not
imply the total eradication of SPIRIT IN MANIFESTATION,  only a
change of state or condition -- and that is within the limits of
DURATION -- as such it would be only a limited period of time --
a Kalpa or a Manvantara.

I may be wrong in expressing this, but I think the logic is sound

Dallas

dalval@nwc.net


==============================

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Kusek [mailto:mark@withoutwalls.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 9:38 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: theos-l digest: March 03, 2000


This question is particularly addressed to Jerry Schueler, but
anyone can chime in :

Granted the conclusion reached by Buddhists of the Emptiness of
Self (re: the doctrine of an-atma)
and the ultimate reality of void-nature (i.e. the emptiness of
Emptiness, as you say) ...  do they
also hold that such a thing as Atma (Supreme Universal and/or
Supreme Individual Selfhood; even to
the archetypal core of the embodied personal human ego - a la
Jung) exists conventionally (as an
aggregate or whatever), while still being ultimately or
absolutely void?

If so then, could the duration of that conventional (seeming)
existent "being" be said to be the
length of a manvantara, and thus put into perspective the place
of Theosophical teachings vis a vis
this an-atma realization of Buddhism?

I've never heard you actually come out and say this, although
I've been following your recent
discussions with Dallas with some interest. If I am not entirely
off base here, might that not
reconcile your two points of view? (although perhaps giving some
the awareness of a potential they
might not be comfortable with?)

Regards to all,

-- Mark

----------------------------------------
Without Walls:An Internet Art Space
email: mark@withoutwalls.com
www.withoutwalls.com


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-539B@list.vnet.net



-- 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.