Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00322)

At 12:30 PM 10/20/01 -0400, you wrote:
> <<It's above space/time as we know it.>>>
>
> Eldon, you are correct. I think that this is the central point that I have
> been trying to make on this whole issue. When we compare HPB's 7-plane model
> with Buddhism we can easily see that the lower 4 planes are samsara and the
> upper 3 are nirvana. The Hinayana teach that nirvana is permanent and
> ultimate and absolute. This seems to be in accord with what Dallas and
> others keep saying re the permanency of atma-buddhi. However, the Mahayana
> and especially Dzogchen hold that the ultimate or permanent or abolute, if
> such exists at all, has to be beyond nirvana, and they teach that both
> samsara and nirvana are maya. Now, in a previous post of mine, I quoted
> Blavatsky in the SD as agreeing that all 7 planes are maya, so she is in
> full agreement with the Mahayana on this. Knowing this, I keep trying to
> point this out to Dallas when he advocates the permanacy of atma-buddhi. To
> many this is a small matter so technical as to be not worthy of interest,
> but it actually does has many ramifications and consequences on how we view
> Theosophy and especially on our Theosophical worldview. Thanks,
>
> Jerry S.
Jerry:

(I'm cross posting my latest reply to see if there's also
interest in this thread on theos-talk.)

All these things don't quite describe it. It's not something
that you can peg to a plane of existence, and say it's on
this or that plane. That would include the Atmic or Buddhic
principles and the highest of the planes.

All principles and planes are part of participating in the
evolutionary scheme, part of existing. Words like "ultimate"
indicate "highest of" or "higher that any", and as such,
they fall short. We're doing a comparison with them, and
saying nothing of the thing we'd like to refer to.

The same is true of words like "permanent," "eternal," or
unchanging. These indicate an ultimate in terms of time.
They indicate being beyond change in any duration of time
that we may conceive of. Again, we're drawing comparisons
to existence.

You do not contain the description of an apple by looking
at the stain of apple juice on the table top. Nor do you
contain it by drawing a sketch of an apple, nor reading
a recipe for apple pie. An apple is only known by biting
it.

When we speak of this "thing," though, we cannot even
say that. To "bite it," or to have a direct experience,
is still to attempt to know it by its reflection into
our limited, temporal existence. If someone were to say,
"I just experienced it directly," that person would be
lying, self-deceived. It cannot be experienced in any
way that we know, nor have anything to do with us as
we know ourselves.

-- Eldon