Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00256)

<< JERRY... 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 we qoute someone in such a way that it reflects the general meaning of
their overall statement then our qoute is 'in context'. If it doesn't
reflect the general meaning of their overall statement then it is 'out of
context.'

<< JERRY: 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. <<

She may or may not have been. The one does not follow on from the other.
This is poor logical reasoning - the very thing you keep complaining about
in others, is it not?

In the passage you qoute HPB is talking about the DUAL aspect of the Higher
Powers (collectively ISWARA). Thus the questionable link you make is to say
"so therefore Atma is a Maya". As was pointed out to you before she states
that in truth ATMA is 'not-spirit', ISWARA is 'spirit' and "beyond Iswara
is ATMA". (SD I 573)

This fits in with what Steve rightly wrote in his reply to you ie "in the
ES papers, we are told that the true seventh principle is not Atma at all,
but the Auric Egg, or AE. Atma, we are told, is no principle, which makes
more sense to me."

<< JERRY: 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.<<

I don't believe Atma does change over time. Apparently HPB does not believe
that either. Time is an experience of MAYA. She writes:

"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," (SD I 175)

<< JERRY: 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.>>

If you will allow me to say - there are many things you say where the logic
is lacking or suspect. Steve had tried to point some of these out to you, so
have I and Dallas. Perhaps if you do not put your own understanding above
that of other members of these lists, then maybe what other people say will
not be such a "real problem" to you. We could just be fellow students
trying to explore together, couldn't we?

Anway, I don't feel that the 'stuff' of our 'higher nature' fits into the
kind of logic you are talking about which is just lower manasic. Hence such
attempts to make everything LOGICAL have a way of concretising that which is
spiritual.

<<PETER: 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.<<

<< JERRY: 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.<<

Why not sense the poetry of it, the 'inner meaning' and let the logical mind
rest for a moment!?Doesn't HPB say the Secret Doctrine is meant to appeal to
the 'higher faculties'?

The weakness in your argument is that even if you say "OK, ATMA is Maya" the
question still doesn't disappear. Because we then say "Beyond Atma is
Parabrahm around whose pavillions is MAYA." And then we have to ask - how
can Parabrahm be real if it is surrounded by MAYA & so on?

Perhaps we need to consider the viewpoint we are looking from. To *us* Atma
(or Parabrahm) appears surrounded by Maya. From it own side (to speak
dualistically of course) - "Atma alone is the one real and eternal
substratum of all" (SD I 570) Does Parabrahm experience itself as
surrounded by MAYA during a Manvatara? Does Atma, feel itself surrounded by
Maya?

<< PETER: A raindrop is not 'equal' to the ocean but it is identical in
nature. >>

<< JERRY: 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.>>

I think Steve has already given some good replies to you on this analogy. I
would only be repeating what he has already said.

regards,

...Peter