[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

FW: Re to Peter on Absolutes

Dec 17, 2001 02:52 PM
by Peter Merriott

Hi Jerry,

Late replies I'm afraid. Time for list discussions is limited at the

<<<HPB writes about the two ONES. The unmanifested ONE and the manifested

JERRY: The idea of "ONE" is pure mental gymnastics, and has no reality as a

Why the need to see everything or turn everything into mental gymnastics?
There is a great deal to be said for letting these ideas 'rest' in the mind
like 'seeds' for meditation and allowing the Intuition to have its own say
in its own time. This requires us to tolerate 'not knowing', which if
worked with sensitively can be a profoundly meditative state.

<<<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.>>>

JERRY: No, she didn't. Here she is using Absolute as a noun and in the
sense of non-duality. Everytime she uses "Absolute" one has to interpret
which one she means. G de P also uses Absolute in this sense on

Why not look at what Purucker says. He says he believes the correct use of
"Absolute" is when referring to Brahman, not Parabrahm. Because he uses
that definition he can say there are an endless number of Absolutes
(Brahmans) in the Boundless Universe (Parabrahm). Because HPB used it when
referring to Parabrahm she has to say there cannot be two Absolutes or
Infinites in a boundless Universe (Parabrahm). Hence, "clearly she had a
differnet 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.>>>

JERRY: OK, but Eldon pretty much agrees with me that G de P was a correct
interpreter of Blavatsky.<<<

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

<<<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.>>>

JERRY: The idea of independent existence is well-known in Buddhism, and is
to said to hold for anything that is permanent and unchanging. If Absolute
means that, then I would have no problem at all. However, we also logically
have to give it the name of Causeless Cause, and when we do that, we have
relationship, don't we?<<<

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.

<<<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.">>>

JERRY: OK, so how do you explain creation and manifestation? If Absolute is
not the cause of manifestation, then what is? If any relationship between
manifested and unmanifested exists, then there is dependence, isn't

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?

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.

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.
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.

JERRY: There are no "many kinds" [of Nirvana] because Blavatsky
consistantly uses nirvana to mean her three upper planes. So, there is only
one nirvana, and it is absolute relative to samsara, which is the four lower

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.


You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
List URL -
To unsubscribe send a blank email to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application