Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00227)

Gerald: “Does Atma change over time?”

In theory, no, since it is the Absolute in man. If we
accept the HPB statement quoted by Peter that "I make
no difference between my Seventh Principle and the
Universal Spirit or Parabrahm,” then Atman is absolute
and therefore unchangeable.

Gerald: “Atma must be above maya and must not be
subject to time or space. If this is so, 
then I can't see what the "radiation" and "ray" and
"emanation" business is all about.

Emanation is conscious, a ray unconscious. The
Absolute supposedly sends out “rays” and remains
unconscious, thus remaining passive. It does not
satisfy me, but there it is.

Gerald: “What is the purpose of evolution, and what is
evolving in space-time?”

One might as well ask “What is the purpose of Maha
Pralaya?” One way to express the insight one receives
at the moment of enlightenment – and I admit this is
very poor - is:

It is,
Things are,
That’s it.

There is no Why in the ultimate sense. Things simply
are.

Gerald: “I guess my real problem is that I am sick to
death of the illogic I see from many Theosophists, and
from much of the Theosophical literature, who seem
like that say stuff without logically thinking about
it.

Many theosophists see the subject as a religious and
not a philosophical inquiry. It is therefore
necessary to quote but not to understand what is being
quoted. If you can come up with a page number that is
good enough. If you understand it, then you are
bugging people with irrelevant personal opinions and
are therefore a devotee of the evil Eye Doctrine.

Gerald: “Is a "monad" indivisible or not?

The name implies that it is. The Greek atomos means
“not to divide.” Monads are atomic, and yet not
material atoms in the scientific sense.

Gerald: “It seems very illogical to me to say that
Atma is "real" while it is located on a cosmic plane
of illusion.

We are told that Atma and Buddhi are both unconscious
on this plane.

Gerald: “[the raindrop and the ocean] are on different
planes of existence - the ocean 
exists in a different place. 

Actually, “planes” are of consciousness, and since
both the raindrop and the ocean are accessible to the
same consciousness without modification, they are on
the same plane.

Gerald: “Lets say that the raindrop exists in the air
falling down from a cloud and is falling toward the
ocean. … Both are made of water, but we experience
them … as two separate things.

Focus on the word “experience.” That is the key. 
Maya exists only in consciousness. It comes into
existence when consciousness comes into existence. 
Since consciousness comes into being and passes out of
being from moment to moment, so does maya.

Steve

--- Gerald Schueler <gschueler@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <<<Not cruel, a fair observation. Why should I
> scoff? What place does that have in these
> discussions if we are both serious students? You
> criticised Dallas for quoting HPB out of context and
> yet when asked to supply the context you quote a two
> sentences from the entire Secret Doctrine and
> Collected Writings. I think "context" requires
> more. I can't speak for Dallas, but yes I was aware
> of those two sentences. The difference between us
> is that you seem to be taking them literally and at
> face value. I would prefer to look a little deeper,
> along with understanding the context in which those
> statements were made.>>>
> 
> Peter, we all quote her out of context, and my one
> and only point was that we can pretty much quote her
> to suit ourselves. If the quote, to the effect that
> matter and spirt are both maya, was meant to be
> literal, then Blavatsky was aware of, and she
> accepted, one of the "secret" Dzogchen teachings. If
> the quote was not literal and meant something else,
> then she was not aware of Dzogchen and does not
> subscribe to its teachings. I think that this is
> pretty much what it all comes down to. In spite of
> your arguments, I prefer to think that she was
> initiated, and that she gave that tidbit out
> deliberately.
> 
> 
> <<<<You are certainly welcome to that view and I
> have no desire to change it. But we are trying to
> establish what HPB is saying. Her view is that ATMA
> is not a maya and that it is one with Parabrahm. 
> Thus over and over again we find her saying similar
> things as:>>>
> 
> Peter, If Atma is not maya, then a few logic
> problems will surface. Does Atma change over time?
> If so, then it can't be permanent and it must be
> maya because everything effected by space or time is
> mayavic (or do you have another definition of maya,
> as well?). If not, then Atma must be above maya and
> must not be subject to time or space. If this is so,
> then I can't see what the "radiation" and "ray" and
> "emanation" business is all about. What is the
> purpose of evolution, and what is evolving in
> space-time? I think that how we answer this question
> will define Atma for us. My interpretation of
> Blavatsky is that there is a non-dual non-divisible
> Monad outside of space-time and completely
> changeless/permanent. It sends out a "ray" into
> space-time(how it does this is pretty much a
> faith-based "initial assumption") which is, or at
> some point becomes, Atma.
> 
> I guess my real problem is that I am sick to death
> of the illogic I see from many Theosophists, and
> from much of the Theosophical literature, who seem
> like that say stuff without logically thinking about
> it. Now, I realize that all of this stuff is manas
> exercizes, but I think the very least we can all do
> is to try to come up with a logical system (and
> there will ALWAYS be initial assumptions that we
> will have to make, but I mean logical within those
> assumptions). For just one example, is a "monad"
> indivisible or not? 
> 
> 
> 
> <<<There isn't anything esoteric about saying Atma
> is a Maya. Nor does HPB say it is a Maya, as far as
> I can determine.>>
> 
> Well, she does give us hints. And there is a danger.
> It is one that Buddhists are all too familiar with -
> the (false) claim that they are nihilists, that they
> ultimately believe in nothingness.
> 
> 
> <<<I think you have missed the point. HPB is
> quoting Wilson because what he says is in agreement
> with the view she is putting in the Secret Doctrine,
> ie beyond ISWARA (spirit, Cosmic Ideation, the
> collective Dhyanis) is ATMA around whose pavilions
> is MAYA. That's why she draws on Hindu and Vedanta
> when she wants to consolidate the view she is
> presenting.>>>
> 
> So Atma surrounds itself in mayavic "pavillions" but
> somehow is itself not mayavic? It seems very
> illogical to me to say that Atma is "real" while it
> is located on a cosmic plane of illusion. If Atma is
> so real and permanent, then what is a "monadic ray?"
> 
> 
> <<A raindrop is not 'equal' to the ocean but it is
> identical in nature. >>
> 
> Not a good analogy. Not the same in nature at all,
> just the same in material composition. The nature of
> a raindrop is separation and indivuation.
> 
> 
> <<Using analogy, we might call it an emanation of
> the ocean. It is not the essence of the drop that
> is identical in nature to the ocean, it is the drop
> itself which is identical in nature to the ocean. 
> There is no need to add an extra layer of essence
> between the nature of the drop and the Ocean, which
> is what you do. Atman and Parabraham, Atman and
> Brahm, Tathagata and Buddha Nature are said to be
> one. The Maya is that they are two different things
> when all the time they are of the same nature.>>>
> 
> OK, Peter, lets go with this. I would define "maya"
> a bit differently than you have above, and maybe
> that is part of our differences here. I would define
> the raindrop itself as maya, and I would say that
> this raindrop had no "self" at all, no reality
> except in the sense of a conventional one. The idea
> that the raindrop is different from the ocean is not
> maya, but is ignorance - the arigpa that I mentioned
> in amother post. Why? Because they are on different
> planes of existence - the ocean exists in a
> different place. 
> 
> Lets say that the raindrop exists in the air falling
> down from a cloud and is falling toward the ocean,
> its ultimate distiny. Both are made of water, but we
> experience them, at least during the fall, as two
> separate things. We think that the raindrop actually
> exists, and that it actually falls down, and that
> one day in the far future, it will merge with the
> ocean below. My take on such an analogy is this: the
> raindrop is maya and the fall is maya, and our
> experience of these as two separate and distinct
> things in space-time is our inherent ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> <<<Maybe we could extend the analogy (but not too
> far!) and say a large 'drop' (Paramatman, or later a
> Dhyani Buddha) first emanates from the Ocean, and
> this drop disperses into smaller drops & so on. 
> Still the essential nature of all the drops are the
> same.>>>
> 
> OK, fair analogy here. I would say that from the
> very first emanation of the drop, the drop itself is
> maya and the idea that such a drop can ever come
> about is ignorance.
> 
> 
> <<<Perhaps the drop (Atman) can never equal the
> Ocean (Parabrahm) even when it merges once again
> with its source and 'knows' it is ONE. But all the
> time it has always been the same nature.>>>
> 
> OK, but why? It has been one and the same nature all
> the time because of our initial assumption of an
> emanation - that something could emanate or express
> itself in the first place. The whole idea/definition
> of "expression" and of "emanation" is all about like
> producing like, which BTW is a process called
> svabhava.
> 
> 
> 
> <<<I'll let HPB have the last word.
> "I make no difference between my Seventh Principle
> and the Universal Spirit or Parabrahm; nor do I
> believe in an individual, segregated spirit in me,
> as something apart from the whole."
> (CW V 52)
> ...Peter
> 
> OK, and I agree - because if there were to be any
> "difference" then liberation/enlightenment would be
> impossible. I do, however, have a problem with
> Theosophists throwing around terms like Higher Self
> and Individuality, and even Atman, as if these were
> indeed "something apart from the whole." 
> 
> Jerry S.
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com