Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00264)

<<<<<<<Jerry,
I don't believe Dallas has taken this idea "out of context". I
think it may well be you who does not seem to understand the context in
which Dallas and HPB (and indeed the Mahatmas) write on this subject.>>>>>>>

Peter, good day. Hope you are well. Well, of course you may be right here. I
don't doubt that we each have our own interpretation, and probably suspect
others of being "wrong." I am not, however, trying to be "right" nor am I
saying that Dallas is "wrong" although it probably comes out sounding that
way because I have a hard time putting this into words. My position is that
we each tend to interpret Blavatsky in our own way.

Let me just give you two quotes from HPB and some quick thoughts of my own
in how I personally interpet them.

QUOTE 1: "Each principle is on a different plane" (INNER GROUP TEACHINGS p
19)

QUOTE 2: "Spirit is matter on the seventh plane; matter is Spirit - on the
lowest point of its cyclic activity; and both - are MAYA" (SD Vol 1 p 633)

MY INTERPRETATION: Atma and buddhi, and especially when together as
atma-buddhi, the so-called "monad," are maya - illusions, as are all 7
principles. All 7 cosmic planes are illusion - that means that they exist,
but not as the realities they seem to be. Matter seems to be solid, but it
is not. Atma-buddhi seems to be eternal and permanent, but it is not.

Now, as Theosophists we are free to accept the two quotes above, or not. We
can ignore them, like Dallas seems to do, or we can accept them and then
realize that they dovetail nicely with Buddhist teachings.


<<<<<<I don't have any doubt that HPB and the Mahatmas were thoroughly
acquainted with the doctrine of anatta as taught in Buddhism. We find them
applying this same doctrine to the personal self (rather the non-self of the
skandhas) over and over again. Yet being aware of this they
still emphasized the nature of the Individuality and 'immortality' of
the Spiritual Ego (as distinct from the personal ego) - even an
'Individuality' of the Monad which lasts through the great Paranirvana
(Maha-Pralaya) and emerges again at the next Maha-Manvantara.>>>>>>>>>

Yes, and in this they are very much in agreement with the Mind Only school
of Buddhism, as I have already pointed out several times. But the Middle Way
school, of which Tzongkhapa was a member, tells us that even this spiritual
Self is maya (i.e., the teaching of the emptiness of emptiness). This
teaching of the illusion of the spiritual Self was also accepted by
Longchenpa, one of the greatest Masters of Dzongchen who ever lived. Now,
when one says that the Self is an illusion, this doesn't mean that reality
is nothingness - there is still consciousness, but it is a formless non-dual
awareness that is hard to put into words.
So, the estoeric tradition of Dzogchen and Middle Way tells us that even the
Spiritual Ego, as you put it, has no inherent existence (lots of logic
problems would surface if it did).


<<<<<<<<<<For as long as you/we project the qualities of the personality
onto the Individuality these more complex and deeper doctrines of
Theosophy will always remain obscure. I think we need to get beyond
dictionary and exoteric definitions which is all 'lower manas' mentality and
try to understand the deeper meaning in these teachings.>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed. We all would say, and would agree, that "the grass is green" or that
"the sky is blue." But this is maya, isn't it? Science tells us that colors
do not exist as real things, but are brain interpretations of light
vibratory frequencies. But we humans do experience colors as external
realities, don't we? According to esoteric tradition, the same can be said
of all 7 cosmic planes - they are our own experiential interpretations of
reality, and not reality itself.


<<<<<If you really believe Dallas has taken these ideas out of context
then please bring forward what HPB and the Mahatmas "actually" say on
this subject and offer your own explanation of what it is they really
mean. There are a number of very knowledgeable students of Theosophy on
this list, I am sure they would welcome a genuine discussion on this
important topic. We need more than just disparaging statements about fellow
students and their views.>>>>>>>>>>

OK, and I hope that I have done this. But, and here is the problem: We can
quote until doomsday with different quotes backing up our personal
interpretations while ignoring quotes that seem to disagree with them, etc.
I believe that Blavatsky gave out a whole lot of exoteric material, was very
limited in what she felt the public was ready to receive, but that she did
throw out esoteric hints here and there throughout her writings. The two
quotes that I presented above are just such hints, thrown out for those who
are ready to understand them. It is obvious that these two quotes, when put
together, strongly suggest the mayavic nature of atma-buddhi - but nowhere
does she come right out and say it.
And I have already pointed out in a past post that G de Purucker picked up
on this, and that he too says that the principles are changing, evolving,
and thus cannot be permanent or eternal, so I am not alone in this
interpretation.

Jerry S.