Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00180)

JERRY: On page 90 G. de Purucker says "Although H.P.B. frequently employed
the word Absolute in its ordinary and mistaken significance, she was keenly
aware of its proper grammatical and logical use."<<<<

Jerry, it really is quite simple. Purucker explains his own definition of
"Absolute" and because it does not fit with the way HPB frequently uses that
term he makes the above statement.

For Purucker, the Absolute is Brahman (which he calls the first Logos), page
89 of Fountain. Yet more often than not, HPB uses the term as synonymous
with Parabrahm, this is what Purucker disagrees with. He says the term
should only be used with reference to the Hierarch of any Cosmic System, ie
Brahman. With this usage there are endless numbers of Brahmans,
"Absolutes". Yes, there are any number of Brahms, but whether Purucker is
right to say that the term "Absolute" should only apply to these BRAHMANs,
the Cosmic Hierarchs, is another matter.

HPB writes about the two ONES. The unmanifested ONE and the manifested ONE.
Whether both should be called "Absolutes" is again open to question. It all
depends on our definition of that term. Interestingly HPB wrote:

"there can be neither two INFINITES nor two ABSOLUTES in a Universe supposed
to be Boundless.." (SD I 7)

Clearly she had a different definition to Purucker in mind when she wrote
that.

Eldon wrote an excellent post on the "two ONES" some time ago. Hopefully he
will share his thoughts on this again.

Actually HPB does not frequently employ the term ABSOLUTE in its "ordinary
and mistaken significance", as Purucker suggests. She often uses it in the
sense that most philosophical systems use that word ie to mean "the
unconditioned", "the ulimate reality", "the ONE REALITY" & so on. This is
also consistent with the dictionary definition. It is just in this way
that she uses the term ABSOLUTE to refer to PARABRAHM, something which
Purucker objects to. One can find many references to this just in the PROEM
alone. The first fundamental states this very thing:

"(1) The ABSOLUTE; the Parabrahm of the Vedantins or the One Reality, SAT,
which is, as Hegel says, both Absolute Being and Non-Being." (SD I 16)

<<<It is also used to mean "that which can exist without being related to
anything else." >>>

JERRY: Logically, there is no such thing. Everything has to relate to
something else. Where is such an unrelated thing? If something is unrelated
to anything else, then we can pretty much dismiss it out of hand as being
totally immaterial, can't we?<<<

As it happens, the above phrase is a definition given to the use of the
world ABSOLUTE in the Oxford Dictionary. Yet, what it suggests is that the
ABSOLUTE is not dependent on other things for its existence. It is the ONE
REALITY, the TRUE NATURE that is unborn, un-originated, ie not dependent on
causes or causal relationships for its existence. In the SD it is "that
which is whether there be a Universe or not.... - SPACE."

<<<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.>>>

JERRY: No, whenever she relates Absolute with Atma, she means the Absolute
that equals nirvana. Nirvana and non-duality are two very different
things. Nirvana is a relative absolute.<<<

That may or may not be true. I believe you are making a huge assumption.
But even so the question would be which of the many kinds of Nirvana does
the Absolute equal..?.. 'blending' of consciousness with the Logos and its
various degrees of Nirvana or merging with Parabrahm?

...Peter