Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00096)

Peter,

You make a number of excellent points below and I hope Jerry will 
respond to each and every one of them.

Daniel



Peter Merriott wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> I've been too busy for the last few days to get back to you. Just 
to get
> the context straight, we need to keep in mind that it is Jerry who 
keeps
> getting himself upset on a regular basis, and over many years, 
complaining
> that Dallas especially and others in general have not really (ie 
LOGICALLY)
> understood HPB properly. So it is good of you to offer those 
passages from
> her writings. This enables us to reflect on what HPB actually 
said, rather
> than looking at it through Jerry's or anyone else's interpretation 
of her
> words.
> 
> As you rightly say, this process is called "comparison". Any one 
can offer
> an interpretation about anything, but if we want to have some 
surety as to
> the correctness of that interpretation we need to check it against 
the
> source. By including many references to the same subject found 
therein we
> will also gain an idea as to whether the context supports our 
understanding
> of this persons (the source) view. It doesn't matter whether we are
> studying HPB, Jung or Husserl, the process is the same, as Steve 
rightly
> pointed out. If we want to clarify their meaning we do need to see 
what
> they actually said.
> 
> Let's take Jerry's interpretation that ATMAN is a Maya and see if 
it fits
> with the passages you have offered below
> 
> ----------
> 1. We say that the Spirit (the "Father in secret" of Jesus), or 
Atman, is
> no individual property of any man, but is the Divine essence which 
has no
> body, no form, which is imponderable, invisible and
> indivisible, that which does not exist and yet is, as the 
Buddhists say of
> Nirvana. It only overshadows the mortal; that which enters into 
him and
> pervades the whole body being only its omnipresent rays, or light, 
radiated
> through Buddhi, its vehicle and direct emanation.
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-7.htm
> 
> First of all, Spirit (in the sense of the Absolute, and 
therefore,
> indivisible ALL), or Atma. As this can neither be located nor 
limited in
> philosophy, being simply that which is in Eternity, and which 
cannot be
> absent from even the tiniest geometrical or mathematical point of 
the
> universe of matter or substance, it ought not to be called, in 
truth, a
> "human" principle at all.
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-7.htm
> 
> 
> PETER: Should we believe that HPB is saying that this Divine 
essence, Atma,
> which is imponderable, invisible and indivisible is a Maya? Should 
we apply
> this same meaning to Atma when she describes it as "the Absolute, 
and
> therefore, indivisible ALL"? Is the "absolute and indivisble ALL" 
a Maya?
> Isn't Maya more to do with that which is ponderable, visible and 
divisible?
> --------------------
> 
> 2. Atma alone is the one real and eternal substratum of all -- the 
essence
> and absolute knowledge -- the Kshetragna.** It is called in the 
Esoteric
> philosophy "the One Witness,"
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-3-11.htm
> 
> It now becomes plain that there exists in Nature a triple 
evolutionary
> scheme, for the formation of the three periodical Upadhis; or 
rather three
> separate schemes of evolution, which in our system are inextricably
> interwoven and interblended at every point. These are the Monadic 
(or
> spiritual), the intellectual, and the physical evolutions. These 
three are
> the finite aspects or the reflections on the field of Cosmic 
Illusion of
> ATMA, the seventh, the ONE REALITY.
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-09.htm
> 
> We include Atma among the human "principles" in order not to 
create
> additional confusion. In reality it is no "human" but the universal 
absolute
> principle of which Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the carrier.
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-6.htm
> 
> 
> PETER: Does the expression "the one real eternal substratum of all" 
sound
> like HPB is saying ATMA is a Maya? Is it correct to argue that 
when HPB
> says ATMA is "absolute knowledge", "the ONE REALITY", "the universal
> absolute principle" - what she really means is that ATMA is a MAYA?
> --------------------
> 
> 3. As well expressed by the translator of the "Crest-Jewel of 
Wisdom" --
> though Iswara is "God" "unchanged in the profoundest depths of 
pralayas and
> in the intensest activity of the manvantaras" . . ., still "beyond 
(him) is
> 'ATMA,' round whose pavilion is the darkness of eternal MAYA."
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-3-11.htm
> 
> PETER: This follows on from the above. Here HPB has a real 
opportunity to
> put us out of our misery and tells us ATMA is a Maya. Yet she 
clearly
> distinguishes the two. Atma may be surrounded by Maya during 
manvantara,
> but it is not Maya.
> -----------------------------
> 
> 4. Atma neither progresses, forgets, nor remembers. It does not 
belong to
> this plane: it is but the ray of light eternal which shines upon 
and through
> the darkness of matter -- when the latter is willing.
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-12.htm
> 
> Jerry's main contention that ATMA is Maya comes from his logical 
deduction
> based on the premise that "Atma changes over time". He argues:
> 
> Atma changes over time.
> Anything which changes over time cannot be permanent and must be a 
Maya.
> Therefore Atma is a Maya.
> 
> One can't argue with the logic. The problem is that if the 
premises are
> incorrect even good logic will give us wrong conclusions. What HPB 
states
> is that "Atman neither progresses, forgets, nor remembers." She is 
clearly
> starting from a different set of premises to Jerry. We find these 
premises
> stated by HPB elsewhere:
> 
> "Metaphysically speaking, it is of course an absurdity to talk of 
the
> 'development' of a Monad . . . It stands to reason that a MONAD 
cannot
> either progress or develop, or even be affected by the changes of 
states it
> passes through. IT IS NOT OF THIS WORLD OR PLANE.." (SD I 175)
> ---------------------
> 
> 5. 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.
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-9.htm
> 
> So, if Atma is a Maya, as Jerry suggests, then in the hours of 
Samadhi the
> highest spiritual consciousness of the Initiate is entirely 
absorbed in
> MAYA - is that what HPB means? If Atma is a Maya and 
indistinguishable from
> the ABSOLUTE, does HPB also mean us to believe the Absolute is 
really just a
> Maya?
> 
> Let's keep the above in mind and look at the recent exchange 
between Jerry
> and Steve:
> 
> STEVE: If atma is by definition never phenomena, then by definition 
it
> cannot be "maya"
> 
> JERRY: But it is phenomena, relatively speaking. We can observe it 
in
> meditation, for example. In the same way that we can observe our 
thoughts
> and so observe manas, so we can observe all our principles.<<<
> 
> According to Steve, Atman is the noumenon. According to Jerry, 
Atman is a
> phenomena something which can be observed in meditation. Now look 
again at
> HPB's statement and ask which of these two views most accords with 
what she
> says. She writes:
> 
> "Atma... can never be "objective" under any circumstances, even to 
the
> highest spiritual perception."
> 
> She goes on to say why...
> 
> "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."
> 
> ------------------
> 
> Daniel, I could go on, but anyone can look at those passages for 
themselves
> and ask "Is HPB really saying Atma is a Maya?" and come to their own
> conclusions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ...Peter