Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00077)

Dear Jerry:

I don't seem to catch what you call "illogic."

Also I don't think it is a race of Theosophy vs. Buddhism.

I think originally Buddhism and Theosophy are one. Fortunately
neither of them are a "religion" in any dogmatic sense. They
each have a vocabulary, unfortunately few people these days read
Pali, hence the translations, which I maintain (with few
exceptions) loose something in the mind-set of the translator.
This is inevitable.

Theosophy on the other hand is In an ENGLISH which anyone can
read, and it is unaltered, unless one buys and uses one of the
subtly "edited" editions, and not a photo copy of the ORIGINALS.

If you hang your "illogic" on the fact averred that the MONAD as
an eternal background is ONE. And in MANIFESTATION is
necessarily DUAL (as ATMA-BUDDHI), and TRIPLE (as
ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS ) then what is the difficulty if one desires to
view the functions and qualities of the MONAD in a continuum that
is .limited in time, space and motion?

To my mind it is easy, to yours ?

It is agreed that in manifestation the Monad is a compound. Yet
neither of us can do away with it as a center or focus of
PERCEPTION. I would conclude that the words and not the ideas
trouble you.

With me the words are of little significance providing that they
lead us towards an understanding. No rigidity in words surpasses
the IDEAS. In other words, no "tool" (words) is above the USER
OF THE TOOL (the IDEATOR -- HIGHER EGO linked to ATMA).

I was just reading H.P.Blavatsky's TIBETAN TEACHINGS LUCIFER
Sept., Oct., 1894 -- a MSS published posthumously. -- wonder if
you have seen it? It was originally prepared for printing in
THEOSOPHIST for 1882 -- but was held back for some reason.
[BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH) Vol. 6, p. 94] I also think
this has relevancy to ISIS UNVEILED II 608 and MODERN PANARION
p. 255. See also BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH) Vol. 4, pp
160-1 H.P.Blavatsky on conditions in Tibet.

As to spleen, I don't have any. I am interested is securing a
hold on the truth, and thus I ask my questions or offer my
speculative conclusions for you to look at. I don't resent
anyone's attitude towards any philosophy or religion they hold
dear, so long as we can look into its roots. I do not have the
same regard for those who offer conflicting and restrictive views
and conclusions unless those prove to be generous as well as
logical. There are many roads to the TRUTH, but the convergence
or divergence helps no one see any better.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 10:07 AM
To: Theosophy Study
Subject: Scolding Illogical Ideas


<<<H.P.Blavatsky defines the MONAD as a COMBINED UNITY of polar
opposites: SPIRIT and PRIMORDIAL MATTER, whether on a Universal
scale or taken individually, as a base for our Individual
CONSCIOUSNESS and PRESENCE. She also considers this COMPOUND as
indissoluble and primordial.>>>


JERRY: Dallas, you apparently keep missing the illogic here. Each
time I
point it out, you keep coming back with the same old illogical
line - and I
suspect it is this very failure to maintain logic that will
eventually put
the TM out of business. People today are looking for a logical
coherent
system. Buddhism is growing in America, while Theosophy is not.
When you say
that a monad is a compound, you are screwing things up so bad
that it makes
the whole TM look bad. It could also cause an outsider to refuse
to listen
to anything else you may have to say. Furthermore, a "compound"
is exactly
what Buddha tells us is a mayavic illusion. How can you continue
with such
illogical statements? Blavatsky used the term Monad as opposite
to aggregate
or compound - anything that is indivisible or partless and she
got this from
both Buddhism and from Leibnitz, who apparently coined the word.


<<< Hence the progress of the MONADS is
that of an "eternal Pilgrim." I believe from my reading of
Buddhist scriptures (in English translation--several versions),
that this concept was allowed by the Buddha and actually taught
by him,...>>>

JERRY: Do you see what happens when you begin with a false
assumption? You
end up with a false conclusion. You arrive at an eternal
aggregated pilgrim
by mis-defining a monad as a compound. If you keep the original
definition
of a monad as an indivisible unit, then you won't reach a
conclusion about
an eternal pilgrim.

I would challenge you, and anyone else, to find a single Buddhist
quote that
says any aggregate is permanent. I actually DARE you to find one.
You won't.
The alayavijnana exists for the manvantara (eon) just like the
atma-buddhi,
but the atma-buddhi is a compound that changes and so cannot
logically be
permanent. The illogic of something changing and still being
permanent
stands out like a very sore thumb, and hearing it, I am afraid
that most
thinking people will dismiss Theosophy out of hand as crackpot.

BTW, I am not "scolding" Dallas here, but rather the idea that
something can
change and still be permanent. Logically, anything permanent
cannot change,
by definition. This is also what Tzongkapa taught and his
Gelugpas believe.
Dallas is right to say that Blavatsky does label the atma-buddhi
as a Monad
in the SD, but he ignores the fact that she apologizes for doing
so because
she realized when she used it that it was not technically
correct, and both
she and Purucker say that it is only *relatively* permanent.

I apologise for venting my spleen here, and will try not to do it
again. I
only do so now because I really am afraid that this kind of
illogical use of
words is going to kill Theosophy, which seems to be slowly dying
as it is
(and likely because of such poor terminology). Also, I am tired
of hearing
modern Buddhists downgrading Theosophy in their books. Dallas, as
a
Theosophist, has acknowledged that he finds at least some
authority in the
words of the Buddha. I don't see a single Buddhist publically
advocating
Theosophy as authoritative. Ask yourself, Why?

Jerry S.


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net