Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00324)

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

OK.

<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>

OK. I have already pointed out that while Blavatsky says ""Each principle is on a different plane" it is impossible to make a one-to-one correspondence. I mainly use her 7-plane model for convenience, realizing that it has its limitations, like all models do.


<<<<<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.>>>>>>>

Anything that changes, has to be within time, period. So, we can logically conclude that anything that can be said to be "permanent" (and thus "eternal") has to be outside time, not time-dependent. This is exactly why I get bothered when Dallas or others state that the atma-buddhi is a permanent and eternal pilgrim - the idea of something changing and somehow still being eternal is so illogical that I can't bring myself to stand by and let it pass. So far, Dallas can't even understand the illogic of it, so I will likely just give it up.


<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>>

What you say here is simply not being digested by our ULT members. They think they can know the taste of an apple by reading about it. And also, they admit to being afraid to eat it - maybe give them indigestion or something?.


<<<<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 >>>>>>>>

Exactly. We experience materiality directly, and we experience dreams directly, and so how does one know that direct spiritual experience is any more reliable?

Jerry S.

--