Logic - to Peter
Nov 29, 2001 04:33 PM
by Gerald Schueler
<<<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.>>>
Yeah Peter, I know that Blavatsky explains herself. Unfortunately you and Dallas do not. Dallas has flatly stated many many times that atma-buddhi IS a monad, and thus demonstrates that he doesn't know what a monad really is. Its supposed to be the very opposite of an aggregate, but then you know that too, don't you? And his statements have nothing at all to do with logic, but with the Herculean attempt to give atman permanency. However, exactly how atman can remain permanent and not change has not yet been explained by either you or Dallas, and I am still waiting.
<<<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.>>>
Thanks Peter. Looks like your patience reaches its limits at times too.
When someone calls a duad or triad a monad, and claims permanency, they are certainly fooling someone. Themselves, perhaps?
<<<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.<<<
Yes, Peter. It is mystical to say that atma is Brahman or Parabrahman. It is not logical because they are, in fact, two different things. However, atma is evolving and will be equivalent to Parabrahman someday, so the mystical equation holds and its OK because we all know what is meant by it - ie that atman is evolving and changing and growing more spiritual and thus NOT permanent.
<<<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.>>>
So, your thesis is that atma is permanent and eternal and that this illogical conclusion is OK because logic doesn't work with atma. Or even more to the point, that its OK because this comes literally from Blavatsky herself. OK. Does this mean that you agree with me that a logical framework wherein atman is permanent can't be done? I have already provided a logical framework wherein atma is changing and evolving, but I never claimed it was "true" did I? No, but it is at least logical. I am not trying to argue truth here, just arguing that we should use words in the same sense that they are defined (which for some reason gets you all testy - sorry about that). If you say that atma-buddhi is unified like a monad, or functions in a way that is very much like a monad, or something of this sort then no one will likely argue. But I keep seeing statements to the effect that atma-buddhi is a monad, which is flat out impossible and wrong unless we massage "monad" a bit, and when we do that we really don't have a monad any longer, do we? Blavatsky admits as much. In a recent post Dallas admitted this, but then he went right on using the same old illogical terminology, so I am not sure that he even understands what I am talking about.
<<<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.>>>
OK. And I admit that she uses the wrong terminology in many places, but she does acknowledge her erroneous usage in a few places, and so I can forgive her, but not those today who continue misleading others.
<<<<According to your logic:
- ATMA is a maya.>>>
Yes, of course it is.
<<<- ATMA evolves, changes over time.>>>
Of course it does.
<<<- ATMA dies at the end of a manvantara.>>>
Make that a mahamanvantara for technical accuracy.
<<<- The Monad only lasts till the end of a Manvantara.>>>
Wrong. I use the term "monad" in its true sense of anything that is indivisible, the polar opposite of an aggregate or compound. In that sense the monad does not "live" at all, nor does it "die." It transcends all of that stuff.
<<<- The Monad is a Mayavic compound.>>>
Again, I never said that. However, atma-buddhi and atma-buddhi-manas are indeed mayavic compounds.
<<<According to HPB:>>>>
Your quotes are interpretable, and I have already presented you with how I interpret them. Your interpretations are illogical, and your defense is apparently that logic shouldn't apply. Go for it...
<<<- 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.">>>>
Peter, please look at what is being said here. I am the one who has been saying that a monad is an uncompounded thing. You and Dallas are the ones who keep saying that atma-buddhi, a duad, is somehow a monad, and you get all testy when I point out to you that 1=2 and 1=3 is poor math. How come you enjoy saying that I am wrong and then quoting words that show I am right? I am mystified! (and more than a bit amused) Note the phrase "in their degrees of differentiation" in the above (which you aparently missed). Now, what do you suppose that means? It clearly means that monads are beyond matter and spirit, but when a "monadic ray" enters into spirit it is "vivified" and then "differentiated" to produce mayavic "vehicles" and "substances" etc, which I exactly what I have been saying.
<<<Whether she is right or wrong each of us must discover for ourselves.
It has nothing whatever to do with Blavatsky being right and wrong, my friend, and everything to do with one's interpretation being right or wrong.
Have a nice day.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application