Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00103)

Dear Jerry:

I am but using the terminology that H.P.Blavatsky put into usage.

I presume she had a reason for distinguishing between THE
UNIVERSAL MONAD out of MANIFESTATION and the

INDIVIDUAL MONAD when IN manifestation.

Manifestation implies limitation. If that is "Matter" as opposed
to "Spirit," then the INDIVIDUAL MONAD would be ATMA-BUDDHI, or
the SPIT (as a Ray of that ONE ) linked inextricably to Matter
and BUDDHI is PRIMORDIAL MATTER.

How else would you say it?

In the process of evolution for ATMA/BUDDHI ( the MONAD IN
EVOLUTION) to become consciously independent, that MANAS has to
serve as an intermediary . I find H.P.Blavatsky has then used
the concept of (ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS) as the MONAD when it becomes
self-conscious.

I will agree with you that the designation require a number of
qualifications -- but, is that not one of the problems of putting
metaphysics into the English language ?

We lack the terms that the older philosophical systems provide.

No, I do not think it is illogic, but rather that we have to
adapt ourselves to the paucity of the language we use.

Dal

PS seems to me the first 300 pages of The SECRET DOCTRINE makes
this very clear.

I say this not to evade or to avoid the direct question of
general meaning, but to indicate that in Theosophy specific
meanings have to be studied with a view to seeing if their logic
is at one with the ancients.

D

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 8:45 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Illogical Terminology

Dallas writes: <<<<The single purpose of using words is to
exchange ideas
and hence a common vocabulary is necessary:


Zero " 0 " is the ABSOLUTE ...
TWO is the MONAD in Evolution (SPIRIT AND PRIMORDIAL MATTER as a
UNIT) It is called
ATMA-BUDDHI


THREE is the MONAD when it becomes SELF-CONSCIOUS i.e. acquires
an Independent and free-willed MIND. It is called
ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS. This is the INDIVIDUALITY>>>


The problem with this, Dallas, is that the words that you are
using here are
misleading at best, and so the ideas being exchanged can't help
but be
misleading too. A "common vocabulary" where a Monadic Unit is TWO
and even
THREE is illogical and doesn't make sense to me. Your words
"THREE is the
MONAD" makes no sense at all. Its just like saying "apples are
potatoes."
How Theosophy can hope to survive with such a "common vocabulary"
is beyond
me. Also, most people (especially mathematicians) would define
zero as the
VOIDNESS and infinity as the ABSOLUTE. How can you logically get
aboluteness
out of zero?

Jerry S.

PS I am not trying to start a debate here, and a response is not
necessary.
I am simply trying to point out the illogical use of words that
Theosophy
throws around sometimes.


---
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