Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00585)

DANIEL: It seems to me that Jerry gets too caught up in trying to use
"logic" in these matters.<<<

JERRY: Daniel, yes I fully agree. I can't seem to grasp the finer points of
your "logic" in calling a monad a duad and even a triad. Gee. I wonder what
is wrong with me?<<<

JERRY: PS. Dan and Peter - I don't think we are fooling anyone here with all
this crap about my logic. The Buddha taught that "all aggregates are maya"
and so, of course, the "logic" here is that if atma-buddhi is a aggregate,
then it is mayavic, but if it is monadic then it is not (there is clearly
little need to go into mysticism here). I say it is a mayavic compound, and
have shown how this is a logical conclusion from two basic initial
assumptions. You seem to be saying that it is both a monad and a duad and
are thus trying to eat your cake and have it too. And calling your position
mystical instead of logical doesn't help. I have challenged anyone to put
together a logical framework in which atma-buddhi is a monad. So far, all I
have received in response is a bunch of quotes. Admit it guys, you can't do
it, can you?<<
-------------------

Jerry, your sarcasm notwithstanding - I am sure you know as well as I do
that it is HPB who refers to the Monad at times as a 'unified triad', and
sometimes as 'dual' but she takes care in many places to explain herself.
This has nothing to do with the finer points of Daniel's logic.

The notion of fooling people is one that resides in your mind, not mine. As
for "all of this crap" and only receiving a "bunch of qoutes" - this is
nothing more than your usual derision of other people on this list who have
a different view to you.

As to the comparison of mysticism and logic it was you, not Daniel or I, who
raised this in your post to Morten, namely.

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

With regards a logical framework for ATMA-BUDDHI. I personally don't
believe logic can provide more than a rough outline and even then will fall
short of the mark. To fit the spiritual into the logical is like trying to
pour the ocean into an egg cup. You keep complaining that everyone else on
the list sticks to lower Manas (another way of deriding people) yet this is
exactly what you are persistently doing here. That said, I have already
offered a number of suggestions and reasonings on Atma-Buddhi as a Monad and
how we might understand its make up and the allusion to its progression
through the cycles. If you look back on my previous posts you will see them
there.

As a reminder, we started this whole thread because you repeatedly told
Dallas he was qouting HPB out of context. So we have been looking at what
HPB *actually* states with regards the immortality of the Monad and whether
Atma is a Maya. Whether you or I agree with her, whether she is right or
wrong or even logical in her statements is another matter.

According to your logic:

- ATMA is a maya.

- ATMA evolves, changes over time.

- ATMA dies at the end of a manvantara.

- The Monad only lasts till the end of a Manvantara.

- The Monad is a Mayavic compound.

According to HPB:

- ATMA is not a Maya. But during manifestation Atma is surrounded by the
pavallions of MAYA. "Atma alone is the one real and eternal substratum of
all -- the essence and absolute knowledge".

- ATMA does not evolve, nor is it affected by any of the states it 'passes'
through.

- ATMA does not die, "it is indestructible" and perdures during Paranirvana,
it being "in reality" one with Parabrahm.

- The Monad retains its individuality even throughout Paranirvana and
emerges as the same Monad in the next Manvatara.

- A Monad is an UNCOMPOUNDED thing. "As the Monads are uncompounded things,
as correctly defined by Leibnitz, it is the spiritual essence which vivifies
them in their degrees of differentiation, which properly constitutes the
Monad -- not the atomic aggregation, which is only the vehicle and the
substance through which thrill the lower and the higher degrees of
intelligence."

Whether she is right or wrong each of us must discover for ourselves.

... Peter