Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00332)

<<<<OLD JERRY: The idea of "ONE" is pure mental gymnastics, and has no reality as a "thing-in-itself."
Why the need to see everything or turn everything into mental gymnastics?>>>

Because the "ONE" is purely an idea in our minds, not an external reality. When we think about a ONE manas tends to reify it into something that it is not.


<<<Why not look at what Purucker says. He says he believes the correct use of "Absolute" is when referring to Brahman, not Parabrahm.>>>

Yes, and I agree with him. Absolute is itself a comparative term, and it only has meaning when compared to something else. G de P likes to use the word to compare a hierarch with a hierarchy.


<<<Because he uses that definition he can say there are an endless number of Absolutes (Brahmans) in the Boundless Universe (Parabrahm).>>>

Yes.

<<<Because HPB used it when referring to Parabrahm she has to say there cannot be two Absolutes or Infinites in a boundless Universe (Parabrahm).>>>

Well, yeah, OK, but the problem is (and this is what G de P was referring to) she also uses the term Absolute for nirvana sometimes, and so the term gets confusing. Nirvana is a relative absolute. ParaBrahman is an absolute absolute (because ParaBrahman includes both samsara and nirvana). Technically I agree with you that ParaBrahman (alias non-duality or divinity itself) is the only Absolute. But if you take HPB's usage of Absolute for ParaBrahman in every case, you will be mislead because she also uses it for nirvana (alias spirit or the three upper planes).


<<<Hence, "clearly she had a differnet definition to Purucker in mind when she wrote that.">>>

I don't think we can possibly know what she had in mind for using the same word for two different things, but G de P carefully pointed out her usage and tells us that even though she used it to mean different things, she really understood the difference. In which case one wonders why she did it. I can only guess that she deliberate did so as a "blind" to see if we students could figure it out for ourselves.


<<<I think he was pretty good too. I just don't accept everything he says.>>>

OK


<<<<Philosophically, the argument goes that on the one hand that which is truly Infinite has to be the final basis of everything that is. Yet, on the other hand, the infinite can have no relationship to finite things, for if it did it would then have finite characteristics and finite relationships.>>>

A conundrum? I can resolve this whole issue by pointing out that infinite and finite are two sides of a duality like the heads and tails of a single coin. As such, we can't have one without the other, and Buddhism would suggest that truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes (in other words, its only a conundrum if we believe that both finite and infinite exist as such).


<<<I can't explain the Ultimate Cause, the Causeless Cause. According to the Mahatmas even the highest Dhyan Chohans bow down to that Mystery. Perhaps you can explain it?>>>

No, I can't. And that is exactly why I said it has to be one of our initial assumptions. The Causeless Cause is an assumption that we have to make in order to proceed with any logical explanations of creative manifestation and evolution. 


<<<The finite is dependent on the Infinite but the Unknown Absolute (Parabrahm) cannot be dependent on the finite or on any cause for its existence, hence it is referred to as that which is unborn, unoriginated, non-dependent and also called the CAUSELESS cause.>>>

What you are trying to say here is totally illogical. It only makes sense to me if we just let it be an initial assumption. Either side of any duality is dependent on the other side. Infinite (which we really don't understand) only has meaning to us human beings when compared to finite (which we do understand). It is meaningless to say that infinite doesn't depend on the finite. To do so implies that the infinite is "real" while the finite is "unreal" and in this manner we simply replace one duality with another, which is what I call mental gymnastics.



<<<It seems all we can do is acknowledge the Causeless Cause as the base, the Boundless SPACE in which ever manifesting universes arise and pass away.>>>

OK, but this has to be a logical assumption that we make, not a reality that we can point to.


<<< We 'start' from the First Cause, Brahman. In the world of Kosmos, which includes the unmanifested (formless) and manifested realms of Form, we seem to have lots to say about relationship.>>>

OK, but we shouldn't reify Brahman like the Hindus do. Brahman is a personification of creative forces that are in reality our own collective karma.


<<<You may be interested to look at the many kinds of Nirvana discussed by Purucker and also references to "many kinds of Nirvana" by the Master KH in the Mahatma Letters. Look in some of the Mahayana texts which state that the Nirvana of the Sravakas and Pratyekas is not the same Nirvana as that of the Buddha.
...Peter>>>

Agreed, but the term "many kinds" should rather be "many degrees." The nirvana of the Hinayana is the upper three cosmic planes, and it contains degrees and subplanes. The nirvana of a Buddha is technically called paranirvana in the Mahayana literature and is equivalent to non-duality or Be-ness, which is above our whole 7 plane solar system.

The fact that a spiritual view of things will result in nirvana is the reason why the Mahayana insist on developing compassion for others. If one is truly concerned about the welfare of others, one will not be able to enter nirvana after death but instead will return to help others. Without such compassion, one will automatically enter nirvana after death and waste many eons there in a blissful peace.

Jerry S.

--