Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00151)

Friends,

I don't have time at the moment to catch up with all the mails so I can only
address some of the main points you have all raised.

Yes, Purucker does believe "Absolute" is a relative term and he likes to use
it that way. I see Eldon and Jerry like to follow Purucker's definition.
But it is also important to note that Purucker admits HPB does *not* use it
in the same way as he does. (see Fountain Source - chapter on
Parabrahm/Mulaprakriti).

"Absolute" has a number of definitions depending on whether it is used as a
noun or adjective. It can mean the 'complete or utter perfection' of
something, which is how Purucker tries to use it -unsuccessfully in my
view. I think this is what Ian is objecting to, and quite rightly. For
example, Purucker uses the term to designate the 'hierarch' of any Cosmic
System, the Silent Watcher. He says there are any number of Absolutes
because an "Absolute" is a cosmic jinvanmukta, an entity which has "reached
a condition of relatively perfect liberation."

However, to say that something is only relatively perfect and yet an
"Absolute" is a misuse of the term "Absolute" which would normally imply
'completely and utterly perfect' when used in that context.

When HPB uses the term "Absolute" she does not use it in the same way as
Purucker, and he admits this. HPB more often than not uses the term
"Absolute" as a noun. For in philosophy "Absolute" also means "the
unconditional" "the unlimited" or "the ulimate reality." It is also used
to mean "that which can exist without being related to anything else." (see
Oxford dictionary for examples.) One only has to look at the passages
Dallas has recently offered us from HPB's definitions of Absolute to
demonstrate this (see "Response to Daniel - the Absolute")

So when HPB talks about ATMAN "...in the sense of the Absolute, and
therefore, indivisible ALL, or Atma, [which] can neither be located nor
limited in philosophy, being simply that which is in Eternity" (Key to
Theo), she seems to be using the term "Absolute" in quite a different way to
Purucker.
===================
As to Jerry's proposition that "HPB clearly says each principle is on a
plane". I notice that he likes to take HPB literally when she appears to
agree with him and complain that other people are taking her literally when
HPB contradicts him.

We need to ask, if ATMA "can neither be located nor limited in philosophy"
then how does one locate it on the 3rd Plane of the Cosmos, as Jerry
suggests, or on any one plane for that matter? HPB writes:

"...Atman in man, being of an unalloyed essence, the primordial FIRE (or the
eternal and universal “that which has stood, stands and will still stand”)
IS OF ALL THE PLANES." (CW XII 559, caps added)

HPB also writes that:

"The Great Breath of the Secret Doctrine is ATMAN, the etymology of which is
'eternal motion'." (ES Instruction No 3) This puts it at its source
'beyond' the first Logos and gives us an idea as to what HPB might mean when
she says Atman is One with Parabrahm as its radiation.

We see the same thing again in another passage:

" Atma... is no entity but an emanation from the Absolute, and indivisible
in reality from it."
(CW XIV 49)

Note the term "in reality" - in other words however Atma may appear *to us*
during Manifestation, and apparently to some people it appears to be Maya,
"in reality" it is indivisible from the Absolute. Hence HPB writes:

"I make no difference between my Seventh Principle and the Universal Spirit
or Parabrahm; nor do I believe in an individual, segregated spirit in me, as
something apart from the whole."
(CW V 52)

...Peter