Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00403)

<<<And Atma = Brahman. Atma = ParaBrahman when Atma is referred to as the SELF, the Universal SELF, and not (more litterally) when it is referred to as a level - i.e. just one of the 7 levels - like HPB sometimes also do it. So what 'is' ParaBrahman ??
You don't know yet - in your limited way of being. But you will fully realize it. It can happen sooner, than you might think. I know that.>>>


Morten, Your equations are OK if meant mystically, I suppose, but if meant literally then they are logical obsurdities. 

I may be the only here who likes G de Purucker, but I really do like him and I do think that he knew what he was talking about, and I guess many of my strange-sounding ideas come from his writings.

On p 85 of his Fountain Source, he equates Parabrahman with "Divinity" and he goes on to write "Parabrahman is no entity. An entity, no matter how vast, implies limitation." etc etc and I am in complete agreement with him.

So, if atma=parabrahman, as you seem to think it does, then atman is not an entity or self or any kind of an individual being, and in fact, we reach the logical conclusion that I have been talking about - that none of us have any inherent existence as individual beings.

Jerry S.

PS. I would challenge (request?) you and Peter and anyone else who is interested, rather than quote words from Blavatsky (which don't help because we all interpret them differently), you each tell us what you think these four things are: Atman, Paramatman, Brahman, and Parabrahman - in your own words, please. I will even go first:

Parabrahman - Divinity itself - non-duality.

Brahman - a divine expression (spark) - indivisible Monad - outside space-time & planes.

Paramatman - expression of Brahman, I-Not-I Monad - beginning of duality - on first plane.

Atman - expression of Paramatman - monadic ray within space-time, on 2nd or 3rd plane downward.


--