Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00479)

Jerry (and Morton)

I missed this one when you sent it earlier.

MORTEN to PETER: 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.<<<

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

Then why take them literally? My own feeling is that the 'mystical'
understanding is probably a better guide than literal 'nuts and bolts'
logic.

JERRY: 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.<<

I agree with you, I think he did know a thing or two. I also really like
what he has written. And that particular book you mention below is well
worth exploring, in my view. I would recommend it to any serious student.

JERRY: 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.<<

I see from your above replies to Morten that you are happy to take things
literally and also qoute when it suits you. You may be interested to know
that HPB states that ATMA is no entity, which makes sense given what she
says about Atman being one with Parabrahm. HPB:

"The personal God in man is not his seventh Principle alone, as per se and
in essence that is merely a beam of light of the infinite Ocean of Light.
In conjunction with our Divine Soul, the Buddhi, it cannot be called a Duad,
as it otherwise might, since, though formed from Atma and Buddhi, the former
is no entity but an emanation from the Absolute, and indivisible in reality
from it."
(CW XIV 49-55)

I think it would help us follow your reasoning if you decided which argument
you are using. You have been arguing that ATMA must be a maya because it
evolves and changes over time (though HPB says it does not evolve.) Now you
are saying if Atman is one with Parabrahm then that proves you are right
about the lack of inherent existence in all beings. Well, if that is your
argument you need to explain how something can evolve which does not exist,
but is only imputed, ie a Self?

What the Secret Doctrine states is while man's spirit is not an
'individual', PER SE, (in other words it is not a *separate* self) it has a
"distinct individuality" which it is able to retain even throughout
Para-Nirvana and thus emerge as "the same individual Divine Monad" at the
next Manvantara. (see for example CW VII 52 & SD I 266)

The question that naturally occurs is, "How can something that is not an
'entity' have an individuality?" I think the clue lies in the notion that
just as Parabrahm and Mulaprakriti cannot really be considered apart, they
are indivisible, so the same is the case for Atma-Buddhi, the Monad. If we
combine this with what HPB says in her passage above (CW XIV 49-55), it
suggest that at the heart of each being we are both the unlimited (ATMAN
indivisible from the Absolute) and that Divine Soul(BUDDHI, the Pilgrim)
which through Manas has its links with space and time. We partake of the
nature of both.

This is how I understand and 'sense' it, though I find it difficult to put
in words. This is also why I instinctively feel HPB utters a real truth
when she states:

"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, caps added)


...Peter