Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00106)

Thanks, Eldon, for your comments below.

I will try to understand the relevance of what your write to the 
discussion going on.

I do have one question. You write:

"It's mentioned early on in the SD that even the
Dhyan Chohans do not know what exists beyond our
solar system. Their knowledge, fragments of which
constitute our highest mystery teachings, deal with
the coming into being of this 'relative Absolute'."

Exactly where in the SD is this information given?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc




Eldon B Tuckerwrote:
> At 07:57 AM 12/8/01 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >
> >You and GdeP 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?
> 
> Daniel:
> 
> Here's one mention of the general idea of two Absolutes.
> One way to put the general idea is that there's an
> unattainable, unknowable universal, which forms the
> matrix in which all things of the multiverse may be,
> and the localized or relative Absolutes.
> 
> To a particular scheme of existence, it has its
> Absolute Being, ultimate perfection, end of time
> and destruction of all things, reachable goal of
> evolution, Silent Watcher sitting on the threshold
> of a higher scheme yet looking back, etc.
> 
> It's mentioned early on in the SD that even the
> Dhyan Chohans do not know what exists beyond our
> solar system. Their knowledge, fragments of which
> constitute our highest mystery teachings, deal with
> the coming into being of this "relative Absolute".
> 
> Most of the confusion I see when people are
> involved in the study of the deeper aspects of
> Theosophy, dealing with how things come into being,
> rise from their not keeping this distinction clearly
> in mind.
> 
> The question "how did all things come into being
> at the start of a Manvantara?" needs the further
> clause "in this particular world system" or "in this
> particular solar system". Without the clause, perhaps
> thinking one is pondering the question with the
> impossible clause "for all things, everywhere, of
> all time, throughout the multiverse, dealing with
> the ultimate, knowable infinite," then confusion
> enters.
> 
> The problem arises when someone asks themselves
> a trick question, with a built in contradiction,
> unable to be answered unless one first recognizes
> the trick. Such questions include:
> 
> * Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> 
> * What happens when an irresistible force meets
> an immovable object?
> 
> * What is the sound of one hand clapping?
> 
> In this case, the trick question is when one is
> considering what happens at the origination of
> a particular world scheme, coming into manifestation
> at the end of its Pralaya. One is talking about
> a particular system and its relative Absolutes
> and mixing it up with the ultimate Absolute, which
> goes way beyond comparison to whatever biggest
> scheme of existence that any being whatsoever
> could conceive of.
> 
> The two Absolutes that Jerry mentions sound like
> two relative Absolutes, one for our current scheme
> of existence, and a second, further-removed one.
> 
> In a truly infinite multiverse, there are really
> an infinite number of increasingly higher relative
> Absolutes. One system with its Absolute exists
> within a bigger system that also has its Absolute.
> That bigger system exists in yet a bigger scheme.
> Going bigger and bigger in scale, there is no
> biggest, no top. There is always a higher scheme
> of things giving birth to the one that we would
> consider topmost.
> 
> -- Eldon
> 
> ---- cut here for quote from SD, I, 130 ----
> 
> Moreover, in Occult metaphysics there are, properly speaking, two
> "ONES" -- the One on the unreachable plane of Absoluteness and
> Infinity, on which no speculation is possible, and the Second
> "One" on the plane of Emanations. The former can neither emanate
> nor be divided, as it is eternal, absolute, and immutable. The
> Second, being, so to speak, the reflection of the first One (for
> it is the Logos, or Eswara, in the Universe of Illusion), can do
> all this.† It emanates from itself—as the upper sephirothal
Triad
> emanates the lower seven Sephiroth—the seven Rays or Dhyan
> Chohans; in other words, the Homogeneous becomes the
> Heterogeneous, the "Protyle" differentiates into the Elements.
> But these, unless they return into their primal Element, can
> never cross beyond the Laya, or zero-point.