Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00097)

Jerry wrote:

"Indistinguishable" does not mean "equal"
> it simply means that one can't tell the difference
> from our human-mind perspective. From our human
> perspective, samadhi (which is the subjective mental
> state corresponding to objective emptiness, both of
> which are in nirvana) seems very real indeed. But
> even emptiness is empty. Even nirvana is maya. In
> fact, to think otherwise is considered in Mahayana
> Buddhism, which Blavatsky liked so much and into
> which she claimed to have been intitated, an
> unenlightened view.

Jerry, I'm puzzled by several of your comments.

First of all, where did HPB specifically say she had been initiated 
into Mahayana Buddhism?

Secondly, what do you mean by "objective emptiness"? Where are you 
deriving this concept from? Is this in HPB's writings? 

Jerry you also write:

> HPB discusses two "absolutes" (which are
> both relative, ie, absolute relative to our human
> perspective). The first is the upper three cosmic
> planes, or nirvana, where atma is located. The
> second is outside the 7-plane solar system, where
> the Monad is located. The first is maya. The second
> is non-dual and ineffable. According to G de
> Purucker, both of these are relative, and there are
> no upper limits or true absolutes anywhere. I agree
> with him. 

Jerry, what do you mean Atma is located on the upper three cosmic 
planes? Where is this teaching to be found in HPB's writings?

You and GdP may agree that there are only relative absolutes but 
since Peter was discussing HPB's views, where do we find Blavatsky in 
agreement with this idea?

Jerry, it is fine that you hold these various views but I believe 
Peter was trying to understand what HPB's views are.

Daniel

BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc