Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00135)

Wednesday, January 09, 2002

Dear J---y:

Of course you are correct. The proviso causing an exception is
the visualization of TIME. DURATION is hard to deal with, when
our experience in the here and now is so limited and TIME appears
like a thief to steal our "time" away.

I sure do get it:

When limited in any ONE MANIFESTATION ( Manvantara or
Maha-Manvantara) all DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE MAYAVIC.

H.P.Blavatsky in The SECRET DOCTRINE says: S D I 54-5 and
also in the footnote fn (54)

"The idea that things can cease to exist and still BE, is a
fundamental one in eastern Psychology. Under this apparent
contradiction in terms, there rests a fact of Nature to realise
which in the mind, rather than to argue about words, is the
important thing....[ here H P B uses the question as to whether
the gases H and O are abolished when H2O water is formed is
discussed] ..."existence as water may be said to be, for O and
H, a state of Non-being which is "more real being" than their
existence as gases; and it may faintly symbolize conditions of
the Universe when it goes to sleep or ceases to be, during the
"Nights of Brahma"- to awaken or reappear again, when the dawn of
the new Manvantara recalls it to what we call existence."

"Hence non-being is "ABSOLUTE Being," in esoteric philosophy. In
the tenets of the latter even Adi-Budha (first or primeval
wisdom) is, WHILE MANIFESTED, IN ONE SENSE an illusion, Maya,
since all the gods, including Brahma, have to die at the end of
the "Age of Brahma;" the abstraction called PARABRAHM
alone--whether at we call if Ensoph, or Herbert Spencer's
Unknowable--being "the One Absolute" Reality. The One secondless
Existence is ADWAITA, "Without a Second," and all the rest is
Maya, teaches the Adwaita philosophy." S D I 54 fn. [ also S
D I 265 ]

I was sure you knew this reference and this is what I have been
writing about all this time. Something has to "bridge the gap"
between periods of manifestation? Not physical but ENERGY, FORCE
modified by LIVING EXPERIENCE -- INDIVIDUALITY to me, survives.
So does H P B say this in her article ISIS UNVEILED AND THE
VISHISTADVAITA. THEOSOPHIST, Jan, 1886 ( H P B Articles III p
265.)

But I do not find any statement (have you one ?) which says ATMA
is Maya.

[ S D I p. 570-1 says ATMA alone remains]

[S D I p 193 top, it states that ATMAN passes into NON-BEING,
which is absolute Being...the purely Nirvanic state is a passage
of spirit back to the ideal abstraction of Be-ness which has no
return to the plane on which our Universe is accomplishing its
cycle."]

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: G---d Sc-----r
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:59 PM
To:
Subject: Atma is Maya

<<<however the Immoral, Divine Monad (ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS) is not a
"maya" but is an immortal -- so says
The SECRET DOCTRINE . >>

No, Dallas, it does not. The SD very clearly says that both
matter and spirit are maya. This whole business was cleared up by
G de Purucker when he said that the atma-buddhi is immortal from
the perspective of human beings, which is to say that it seems
immortal relative to us humans. But then you don't read Purucker
...

I challenge you, Dallas, to find one single quote from Blavatsky
or her Masters that says "the atma-buddhi monad is not maya" let
alone the "atma-buddhi-manas monad is not maya" because the last
one is so patently mayavic that it changes by the hour. The
former is also maya, but changes more slowly. In all of your
thousands of quotes, why have you never produced this one, which
would certainly shut me up on this issue?

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

I do NOT want to shut you up. I am trying to get at the truth of
things -- you are a great help.
Thanks

D

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


Jerry S.



PS: If you have said that "In my view the SD says ..." I would
have let this pass.

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


I'm actually quite happy you are so careful -- it keeps me honest
too.

SORRY YOU A RIGHT I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT TOO

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


PS on the PS: Is your use of "Immoral" a Freudian slip? Just
kidding :-)

----------------------------------------
--
YES - IT IS INATTENTION ON SECOND READING. MY LEFT HAND IS
SEMI-PARALYZED AND OFTEN TYPES AWRY. SORRY. Dal

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