Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00194)

Tuesday, December 11, 2001

Dear Jerry:

Regarding "Multiple ineffables" I think they overlap or are
aspects of ONE and the SAME. They are probably ultimate
conceptions which inquiring brain-minds (Lower Manas) devises to
satisfy its need for a definition or a final source or limit. It
finds itself strangely "at sea" when dealing with ultimates and
inefabilities.

I usually go The THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY and then after reading
the definitions there, I go to the Index to The SECRET DOCTRINE
and check out what H P B additionally says on those subjects.
Then I do a lot of thinking and correlating. I must, very humbly
admit that this is probably faulty.

But from this approach I seem to acquire a great deal of
understanding.

Example:

ABSOLUTENESS is inclusiveness without limits of any kind. Yes, I
agree, it is ineffable -- being incapable of using words to
express it. It cannot be externalized or limited in any way. I
suppose it is like the "ineffable Word" -- but that is a guess,
as the moment we apply some kind of vibration (as in a "word") we
also apply a vibrating object (even if it a mind, and the "word"
is pronounced as an idea - silently) within a limited sphere and
an ear (or some other receptor) capable of perceiving the
vibration and then a MIND able to interpret that, and then, the
"Owner of the Mind" who tells it what to do -- and thus chooses a
response.

In other words the moment we pass from the ABSOLUTE in thought,
duality supervenes, as the S D suggests : (Vol I, pp 14-19 on
the 3 Fundamentals ) It is the contrast of SPIRIT and primordial
MATTER as perceived by the Median entity the Perceiver -- the
MIND ( Mahat ).


EMPTINESS implies to me a "container" and the interior lack of
some substance ? I would assume that outside some kind of
boundaries, that missing "substance" is to be found. It also
implies to me a CONSCIOUSNESS or a PERCEIVER that is able to see
or perceive these variations. And yet we find in the S D vol. I
the statement that there is not a single part of space that is
"void" -- not an "angula" (or a finger's breadth) in the whole of
space that is without something present there. (Sd I 289)

And yet, if the ABSOLUTENESS is everywhere, but is unaffected by
manifestation or non-manifestation, can it be called a "container
?" I think it simply IS as the old Hindu metaphysicians said.

As to your queries:


BE-NESS -- No defined beings.


PARAMATMA	-- Beyond, above ATMA as the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT


PARABRAHMAM	-- source or Cause of Manifested BRAHMA


PARAMPADATMAVA	-- "beyond the condition of spirit --"supremer"
than spirit -- bordering on the ABSOLUTE. [ The THEOSOPHICAL
GLOSSARY, p. 249]


PARAMAPADHA	-- a place (according to the Vishistadwaita Brahmins)
where bliss is enjoyed by those who reach Moksha -- not
material -- made of "suddhasattva" -- the essence of which is
the "body of Ishwara" [ The THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY pp 249,
311 ]


I think of these things only when they are raised. Of more
importance, I think, is what we do and how we act and chose in
our day to day life, if we are bent on purifying our lower nature
and being of service to the world at large and to humanity.

i think of what H P B says when she avers that the SPIRIT/Soul of
each human is not diffused or annulled in the great rest periods
of MAHAKALPANAPRALAYA -- but under the law of Maha-Karma
reappears as a coherent entity when a manifestation becomes
necessary in which the presence of that entity is again required.


Best wishes,

Dallas

===========================================



-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 7:11 AM
To:
Subject: Multiple Ineffables? - to Dallas

-------------------------------------

<<<The word ABSOLUTE, or ABSOLUTENESS means there are no
definitions we can set of ay kind. There is no such thing as
relation or relativity. It is the "eternal background" and is
deliberately
cast as a subject that escapes any attempt at individualized or
personalized consciousness to penetrate. It might be called the
final refuge of CAUSE, or the abode of the CAUSELESS CAUSE.>>>

Dallas, your words here all suggest ineffability. And I agree
with you when Blavatsky's Absolute equates to non-duality. But
she also uses the term Absolute to mean nirvana, which is
emptiness, and which is also the upper three planes. When used in
this latter sense, Absolute is not ineffable, and is very much
relative.

Given your take on the word "Absolute" above, I wonder how you
would define other terms, like Be-ness, Paramatman, and
Parabrahman? Are you suggesting that these all different words
for the same thing, or do we have multiple ineffables?

Jerry S.
--





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/