Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00150)

<<< "Does HPB put the view that there is an immortal and enduring Self?" Your view was that HPB does NOT put this view and that Dallas has taken this out of context. >>>

JERRY: Not exactly, Peter. I agreed that atman is immortal, and infinite. I even agreed that it is "enduring" over lifetimes. But I did, and still do, object to the assertion that it is eternal. According to my Websters Dictionary, eternal means "existing outside all reflections of time; not subject to change." So I view "eternal" as outside of time altogether. If something changes, then its no longer the same thing it was - and all change takes place within a time continuum.



<<<PETER: Whether or not we agree with them the fact is we find HPB and the Mahatmas referring to this "immortal spiritual Self" all the way through the Secret Doctrine. This doctrine is present in the Key to Theosophy and appears over and over again in The Collected Writings.>>>

JERRY: Yes, and I have no problem with immortal, as I have said. Atman is immortal but not eternal except as Blavatsky defines eternal - lasting for one manvantara.


<<<You suggest something cannot be "permanent" if it changes over time. Surely, it all depends on what we mean by "permanent". For example, take
what the Secret Doctrine states about Parabrahm-Mulaprakriti - 'seemingly' two aspects of the ONE ABSOLUTE:- "It is the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being... absolute consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality." (SD I 2)>>>

JERRY: Her Parabrahm-Mulaprakriti is outside of our time continuum, and so is indeed eternal. I wince with each "absolute" that she uses. G de Purucker mentions that all absolutes, eternals, and infinites are actually relative, which I agree with.



<<<When we come to understand the 'immortal Monad' we need to keep in mind that Atma-Buddhi in man corresponds to Parabrahm-Mulaprakriti in the Kosmos.
In fact, Atman is one with Parabrahm as its radiation. I believe that is why HPB says of ATMAN that it is indestructible (CW IV 185). >>>


JERRY: Peter, "corresponds" does not mean equal. And please note the "as its radiation" in your above quote. Parabrahm exists outside our 7-plane universe, while atma exists as its radiation within the 7-plane universe, and this whole 7-plane universe is maya. Your quotes are in agreement with what I have been saying.



<<<Once again your first sentence is very much what Dallas is stating.>>>

JERRY: No, he keeps saying that atman is permanent and eternal, which is incorrect. Sometimes he says that atma-buddhi is eternal and permanent, which is even more incorrect.


<<<However, Atma-Buddhi does not evolve, as such, hence it is not time dependent any more than Parabrahm-Mulaprakriti is time dependent.>>>

JERRY: Then pray tell me what does evolve? What is the purpose of evolution, if not to evolve atma-buddhi? 



<<< It is the same in the Adwaita Vedanta system - Atman is already one with Brahman, it
does not evolve. Just as - in the Buddhist system Tathagatagarbha does not evolve to become Buddha-Nature - it already IS. >>>


JERRY: I agree with this, Peter. 


<<< Hence HPB states about the Monad:

"Metaphysically speaking, it is of course an absurdity to talk of the 'development' of a Monad . . . It stands to reason that a MONAD cannot
either progress or develop, or even be affected by the changes of states it passes through. IT IS NOT OF THIS WORLD OR PLANE, and may be compared only
to an indestructible star of divine light or fire, thrown down on to our Earth as a plank of salvation for the personalities in which it indwells.
It is for the latter to cling to it; thus partaking of its divine nature, immortality. Left to itself the Monad will cling to no one; but, like the
'plank', will be drifted away to another incarnation by the unresting current of evolution." (SD I 175)>>>

JERRY: I agree with this quote. But tell me, what does it mean then, to say that the mineral monad becomes a vegetable monad, which becomes a human monad, and so on? If the monads don't evolve, what does?



<<<If it is still around at the end of a Pralaya in order for it to be "re-imbodied" at the next Manvatara, then it has not really died or been
destroyed, has it? It is immortal and enduring as both Dallas and HPB state.>>>

JERRY: When I die, who is that will take rebirth? Will Peter be reborn? Will Jerry simply throw off the body and take rebirth in a new one? No. The same is true with the monad between manvantaras.



<<<According to the Secret Docrtine, both Cosmic Ideation and Cosmic Substance are 'withdrawn' at the end of a manvatara. But the Monad does not die, any
more than matter or substance 'dies'. HPB and her two Teachers state that the Monad endures not only **through** the minor pralayas and complete
planetary pralayas, but even through the GREAT Universal Pralaya -
PARANIRVANA. >>>

JERRY: Here you are confusing/confounding the word monad. In its true sense, our indivisible monad is outside of the 7-plane universe. Atma-buddhi is called a monad or "ray" that is within the 7 planes, as are the mineral, vegetable, animal, and human monads. There are indivisible monads, duad monads, triad monads, and so on, all on different planes or outside them altogether. These all have to be taken into consideration when we use the term "monad" as to which monad one is talking about. Taking HPB's words too literally, leads to confusion.



<<<<HPB appears to be asserting here, as she does in many other places in her works, that there is an immortal and enduring SELF in each being which has a
kind of "distinct individuality" of its own. >>>

JERRY: The notion that there is "an immortal and enduring SELF in each being" is the core of maya, the central ignorance that keeps this whole manvantara going. The Path is usually described in stages because it is too much to take all at once. At one stage we learn of a Self that outlasts the ego. At another stage we learn of a monad that outlasts the Self, and so on.


Jerry S.
--