Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00034)

Gerald: "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.

That depends on what the goal is. If you are trying
to determine what is true in a scientific sense (a
task the successful completion of which I suspect will
elude you) then the above statement is true. If you
are trying to figure out what Blavatsky was saying,
the same way you might try to figure out Husserl's
IDEEN, without regard to whether or not you agree or
disagree, then quotes are necessary, but so is
thought. Some people use quotes without encumbering
them with interpretation. We have to define and agree
on the goal of the discussion.

I have no interest in challenging or disproving
anyone, but I think you have misunderstood some of
these ideas. Since they are presented by Blavatsky
with such luminous clarity I cannot understand why.
:-)

Gerald: "Here is my take: atma is the principle of
subjectivity, and buddhi is the principle of
objectivity, and your "fields of primal energy" is
what holds these two together  Fohat. In the
same way that Fohat cements the INotI
Monad together on the first plane, so it also cements
atma and buddhi together."

Not to be argumentative, I don't think that is what
Blavatsky said. "Buddhi" is supposed to be the limit
of reason, and apparently something which mortals can
study intellectually, but not perceive with the
senses. It therefore qualifies as a noumenon
according to Kant's definition. However, since it can
be conceptualized to some extent, it is properly an
object of mental consciousness, so that one can say it
is phenomenal to manas. That then sets up another
noumenon/phenomenon duality, meaning there must be a
noumenon which stands behind it, and that is referred
to as "atma" which we are told can neither be
perceived nor thought. It is therefore not an object
of consciousness to the senses or to manas, but it
must exist ex hypothesi since for every phenomenon
there must be an accompanying noumenon. Kant's theory
has therefore been extended here. Instead of a simple
duality of noumenon and phenomenon we have this
duality existing on several levels. This trend can be
seen in more primitive form in Eduard von Hartmann's
PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS.

So if the "monad" is "buddhi" as it is defined to be,
then its existence presupposes the existence of its
noumenon, which we call "atma." This is not an
aggregate, since "atma" merely means reality whereas
"buddhi" means the phenomenal representation of
reality. They are both the same thing.

Consider that "reason" is said to be seated in the
fifth principle, "buddhi", which is the limit of
reason, is defined as the sixth principle, and the
seventh then is defined as being beyond the limit of
reason.

Gerald: "I place atma on the three upper planes and
the other six "principles" on the upper three of the
lower four planes (surely no principle is on the
physical plane).

Since the word "plane" refers to consciousness and
"atma" is inaccessible to consciousness, it makes no
sense to say that "atma [is[ on the three upper
planes." Our representations of sense experience have
to do with the physical plane, and are therefore "on
the physical plane" as you say. This is why in the
EST papers kama-manas (the conscious mind of
psychology) is said to be the physical plane
"principle." Why so much confusion was inserted into
all of this by HPB et al. I do not know.

Gerald; "I can interpret every one of your quotes to
"prove" that atma is maya"

If atma is by definition never phenomena, then by
definition it cannot be "maya" because that word
refers to the split between our phenomenal
representations of reality and reality itself,
especially to the inferences (objects of mental
consciousness) that we cherish regarding reality.

Gerald: "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 think there is some looseness of language in
Blavatsky's statements if she said that (which would
be characteristic.) If "atma" is never an object of
consciousness (i.e., is always noumenal) then it
cannot by definition be "on" any "plane."

Daniel is therefore at least interpreting correctly
when he says that atma "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."

I use the word "interpreting" because as I said, I am
trying to make sense of what HPB said without regard
for whether her ideas are true in a scientific sense.

Daniel is wrong when he says "Brahma" is the same as
the Absolute. Theosophy equates that Hindu deity to
the Demiurgos of Plato, and therefore to the mind of
the cosmos, or Mahat.

As for his further statement that: "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
submit that it is really better for non-yogis not to
speculate on that.

Gerald: "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."

Actually, what it means is that "atma" can never be an
object of consciousness, which is what objective
means. If it is an object of consciousness it is
objective. If it is not an object of consciousness it
is not objective.

I would submit that "subjective" is a word applied to
our representations of reality which are not perceived
as external to ourselves. Mempries, for example, are
subjective. Those, too, are objects of consciousness.
"Atma" is defined as the noumenon which in no case
becomes phenomenal and is therefore never objective or
subjective.

Gerald: "While atma per se may be eternal, is my atma?
Is yours?"

In theory you don't have one which is distinct from
everyone else's, so if we accept your first statement
that "atma per se may be eternal" we must answer the
second and third questions yes.

Gerald: "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."

In my case I have never been able to whistle for some
reason.

SS


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com