Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00279)

In a message dated 03/01/02 4:35:12 PM, gschueler@earthlink.net writes:

><<<Since when can Atma -- which can only be experienced entirely 
>subjectively through the mind alone -- be "phenomenally experienced"? >>>
>
>What is mind? If you mean our normal thinking mind that has logic and 
>reason and conceptualization, then this is manas, not atma. The fact that you
>yourself use the word "subjectively" in the above demonstrates the dualistic
>nature of atma, which belies its mayavic nature. Anything that can be 
>subjectively experienced is maya because the subjective self is maya. 

Only on the lower level of personal or rational mind. But, I'm talking about 
the higher intuitive mind that is represented by buddhi-manas which is the 
inner monadic aspect of Atma that is not mayavic, since this aspect is an 
inherent potential of the initial laya point source that is the root of Atma 
-- and is not the personal "self," which is centered on the kama-manas level. 


Perhaps you think of Atma as being part of our temporary and mayavic physical 
nature while I see it as completely spiritual and part of the relatively 
permanent or eternal universal noumenal "nature." Therefore Atma has no 
direct relationship to the personal self -- which is, admittedly, illusory 
(and thereby, in your terms, is "maya").
>
><<<Phenomenal can only be ascribed to something that can only be 
*objectively*
>experienced, or observed and measured through the physical senses. Since
>Atma cannot be so described, it cannot be phenomenal in the accepted 
philosophical
>sense. >>>
>
>We can argue about object or subject, Leon, but either one is a duality
>and thus maya. You are helping my case here, but don't seem to aware of
>it.

I am speaking of noumenal nature, which permanently underlies phenomenal 
nature. So, how does this strengthen your case? ... Especially, since, with 
your idea of "self," you're dealing solely with ever changing phenomenal 
nature -- which, admittedly, is maya -- as it can only be directly observed 
an experienced by the equally temporary, phenomenal, or rational (kama-manas) 
mind. 

><<<And, therefore, must be as eternal as theosophical fundamental principles
>imply it is... As a direct emanation of the primal source, or Parabrahm
>that must always remain unchanged and undiminished throughout all eternity's.
>>>>
>
>The above is wishful thinking. Why do you, or anyone, think that an 
"emanation"
>has to be eternal?
>An emanation, by definition, is a dependent entity, and all dependent 
entities
>are maya (by my definition of maya, which is also Tzongkhapa's. If you
>prefer another definition, then the rules change). 

Then the rules will have to change... Since, it is noumenal Atma (as the root 
of phenomenal Atma -- as well as the source of the "emanation") that is 
eternal. In my definition, which appears to be consistent with the 
theosophical view, maya, as "illusion," refers only to phenomenal aspects of 
"self" -- rooted in equally phenomenal kama-manas -- all of whose subjective 
and objective aspects are temporary and, therefore, illusory or mayavic.

><<<Thus, Atma cannot be Maya (in the sense of being an impermanent 
illusion).>>>
>
>Well, as a matter of fact, I do believe that atma is indeed an impermanent
>illusion. It is the illusion of a self, a subjective center of consciousness.

You're entitled to believe that definition. But, that's only one of atma's 
secondary aspects, and is not primary to its existence as noumena linked 
directly to Parabrahm -- with its "subjective center of consciousness" being 
a permanent aspect of the zero- (or laya) point itself upon which atma is 
eternally rooted.
>
>
><<<Although, as an individualized ray of Atma or "Spirit (consciousness)
>expressed in man," it may be considered by some superficial thinkers as
>being impermanent -- due to the possibility of it being withdrawn back into 
>the universal Supreme Spirit when all its individual karma has been mitigated
>and/or transcended. >>>
>
>Then you can consider me to be a "superficial thinker" because you are
>entirely illogical here and putting labels on people like me who disagree
>with you doesn't change that.

Superficial, only in the sense that you do not consider both the noumenal as 
well as the phenomenal aspects of atma. (In this sense, then, the label may 
be a valid one.:-) 

As I see it, this is the fundamental duality within the trinity that 
underlies all apparent phenomenal duality's in the universe... Starting with 
the duality between the zero-point and its surrounding spinergy, as well as 
the duality's between spirit and matter, awareness and form, subjectivity and 
objectivity, etc. Of course, also fundamentally, there are no absolute, 
subjective, or abstract duality's, since both the point and its surrounding 
spinergy or "abstract motion" are eternally one necessary noumenal unity 
underlying all apparent (mayavic) objective phenomenal duality's within 
trinities -- with atma remaining the one, eternal unity that supports and 
surrounds them (and without which they could not exist) -- since the first 
duality is buddhi-manas created together within the unity of their 
father-mother, atma. This can only be understood, if you can visualize these 
aspects of reality being coadunate, spherical triune fields originating from 
one laya point.
See: 
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

><<< Nevertheless, even when so withdrawn, it still remains existent in
>eternal Parabrahm... And, thus, is not illusory or subject to Maya -- (whom
>an East Indian Guru once told his chelas was "the sister of 
>Karma" and that Atma was "their father-mother." :-) >>>
>
>Karma is action, or as Blavatsky has it, Motion. If atma acts, moves, or
>changes in any way, then it is indeed karmic and mayavic.

According to the theosophical view based on the three fundamentl principles, 
the noumenal atma, or its directly derivative phenomenal primary field 
surrounding and causing both buddhi and higher manas, does not act, move, or 
change -- other than to periodically appear and disappear, awakened or 
asleep. It's only its inner dual aspets of Buddhi-manas that can change, and 
that is only in their information content, not in their noumenal reality, or 
the retention of such content in either state. If this were not so, the 
Buddha could not have a perfect memory of all his past lives, as claimed.
>
><<<Therefore, while the "soul," or separate "self" identity may be Maya,
>and temporary, the individual spirit or higher "Self," as Atma, remains
>eternally existent. >>>
>
>The idea of a self, whether individual or collective, is maya. Subjectivity
>is the dualistic opposite of objectivity, and dualism itself is what maya
>is all about.

But, in reality, all dualism's are only the inner nature of triune unity's -- 
like two sides of a single coin. So, even from a "non dualist" unified 
viewpoint, there is still both a higher "Self" or individuality, as well as a 
lower "self" or personality (which Buddha's teachings of anatma must have 
referred to as maya). My contention is that the higher "individual" Self is 
permanent, unchangeable and, therefore, eternal -- (as is its central zero 
[laya] point where consciousness, as a primal universal attribute, also 
eternally exists) -- while only the lower or phenomenal, temporary "personal" 
self, is maya (as an "illusory" impermanency -- which is what maya is really 
all about.)
>
><<<Incidentally, this reference to the distinction between lower and higher
>self is all that Buddha could have meant by his doctrine of "Anatma." >>>
>
>Wrong. Buddhism is non-dualitic, and rules out self as well as not-self,
>which are dualistic polarities. Changing from a lower self to a higher
>self is a mayavic process, an illusion, that gets one nowhere at all.

No, the concept of a dual self, both individual (spiritual) and personal 
(physical), related to "one" permanent universal "awareness" center and many 
reflected impermanent personal "awareness" centers (not the duality between 
self and not self) is a logical imperative, perfectly consistent with the 
three fundamental principles of theosophy, as well as their causative, and 
lawfully consistent metaphysical conclusions related to both the noumenal and 
phenomenal, origins, structures and evolutions of the Cosmos. 

LHM