Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00029)

<<<<<<Jerry S. has his own interpretation on the subjects of "atman" and "monad". He believes that his view is far more logical and understandable than the views of Peter M. and Dallas T. For those 
readers and students who are not convinced of the superiority of Jerry's views or who would simply like to know more, one might want to read what H.P. Blavatsky ACTUALLY wrote on the subject. BELOW is 
a selection of what she wrote in some of her books. I also end the selections with a quote from KH.
Daniel>>>>

Daniel, I am somewhat surprised to see you carrying on in the same tradition as Peter and Dallas (I will add your name to that their group). Being a historian, I would think that you would have a deeper appreciation for the possibility of personal interpretations. My whole premise is that Blavatsky is interpretable, and that when atma is interpreted as I had shown, one can reach a logical overview. I have also postulated that when atma is viewed as permanent and unchanging, one cannot reach a logical overview. 

Taking the above into consideration, please note this: You CANNOT disprove my premise by simply throwing around more quotes. I can interpret every one of your quotes to "prove" that atma is maya and changing and so on. The ONLY way you or Dallas or Peter can "prove" me wrong is to submit an overview IN YOUR OWN WORDS that logically shows atma is permanent (which is, I submit, purely your own interpretation). I have challenged anyone at all to do this, and so far no one has done so. Your avoidance of my premise, and your continual throwing around of yet more quotes demonstrates to me a frantic attempt to ... what? 

Now, everyone knows that I am in the Pasadena TS, and that I highly respect G de Purucker. I have shown where he too says that all 7 principles are changing and impermanent. I have quoted Blavatsky to the effect that all 7 principles are on the cosmic planes and that all of those planes are maya. I have also put this all together into a logical overview (which Eldon kindly edited and put in the latest Theos World). So as far as I am concerned, you guys are all whistling Dixie - which is OK because one can be a Theosophist and Whistle anything one wants. But I feel that I am not only trying to defend myself here, but G de Purucker as well, and to quote Blavatsky does nothing at all to my premise except maybe to substantiate it.


<<<<[Dan's Blavatsky quote:]"This "Higher Self" is ATMA, and of course it is "non-materializable," as Mr. Sinnett says. Even more, it can never be "objective" under any circumstances, even to the highest spiritual perception. For Atman or the "Higher Self" is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable from it. In hours of Samadhi, the higher spiritual consciousness of the Initiate is entirely absorbed in the ONE essence, which is Atman, and therefore, being one with the whole, there can be nothing objective for it. ">>>>

I could address all of your quotes, Dan, but will confine myself to the above. Note that she clearly says that atma "can never be objective." Doesn't this logically imply that atma is the principle of subjectivity? It does to me. Here her "ABSOLUTE" is the lower one, nirvana, the spiritual realms, the three upper planes. And I have located atma exactly there. Samadhi is generally held to be the state of consciousness when in the three upper planes. ie when one astral travels to any of the three upper planes, one is in samadhi - a Buddhist would say that the subjective state is samadhi and the objective state is emptiness - and being emptiness "there can be nothing objective for it."

So once again, Dan, I have no problem at all with Blavatsky, but only with your interpretation of her, which I find to be illogical. Now, we are all free to think and to interpret as we wish. But if you really want to accept my challenge or disprove my premise, then you have to do better than simply throw out yet more quotes.

Jerry S. 
--