Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00742)

Hallo Leon and all,

My views are:

I believe, that this quote in the email had a link attached to it.
The email of mine you referred to was as far as I read you - this one:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15636

The attached link you have in your below remarks deleted.
This was the link you deleted:
http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/200203/tt00248.html


Yes.
My view is this.
I was seeking to answer a question to one of the members at Theos-Talk in
the email you referred to .
I think you agree, that The Monad is more than one thing.
Blavatsky had in fact many views on what a Monad was and is. She gave more
than one definition.
And we will find this to be true if we read the Secret Doctrine carefully.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: The Mahatmas and Buddhism


>
> In a message dated 03/28/04 11:10:29 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk
writes:
>
> >Hallo all of you,
> >
> >My views are:
> >
> >The following might be of help:
> >"PS The rejection of self, the anatma doctrine of Buddhism, seems on the
> >surface to be diametrically opposed to Theosophy, which posits a
spiritual
> >Self. But Blavatsky clearly says that this spiritual Self is a ray or
> >emanation into our planetary chain from something she calls a "divine
> >Monad", and so seeing this spiritual Self as maya is not anti-Theosophy
> >at all. And the divine Monad is not a self, so there is really no problem
> >at all."
>
> Morton,
>
> Putting quotes around that statement makes it appear that you are quoting
an
> authority of some sort or another. But judging by the conclusion, I can't
see
> the logic in his thinking. (I hope you are not quoting yourself.:-)
>
> Blavatsky also said that everything in the universe is conscious. She also
> said that the monad is substance or matter, and consciousness is spirit.
So,
> how can we separate substance (whether manifest in Manvantara or resting
in
> Pralaya) from spirit or consciousness.
>
> She also said that the Absolute or primal space (that always is, was or
will
> be) must be in constant motion, and that the Absolute is both empty and
full,
> one and many. Therefore, that abstract motion -- (which can only be, as
an
> aspect of the Absolute zero-point, pure spin) -- must be the root of all
> "substance" (matter or energy)... And, that such Absolute emptiness or
Absolute
> stillness (which such spin motion, angular momentum, or primal force
surrounds)
> must be the root of spirit or consciousness.
>
> It follows, then -- since we can't separate the two aspects of
subjectivity
> and objectivity from each other -- that the "Divine Monad" (being one
triune
> field of consciousness, whether unmanifest or potential, or manifest and
> existent) must have an individual spirit or consciousness at its still
center (which
> cannot change its state or its inherent properties). If the theosophical
> statement "as above, so below" is true, and "everything in the universe
can be
> explained by analogy and correspondence" -- then all rays of consciousness
> descending from the Divine Monad must have an analogous self existence,
and thus, a
> potential individual self consciousness and relatively eternal continuity
of
> existence. (I'm sure the Dhyan Chohans knew who they were, still are, and
will
> be through countless manvantara's to come. :-) Just think (meditate on)
> about that, and let your intuition tell you, what the continuity of past,
present,
> and future existing simultaneously in the moment really rests on?
>
> Perhaps, we are confusing what Buddha meant by the "self," with the higher
> Self or single point of spirit that is the "consciousness" of any eternal
Monad
> -- rather than seeing it as the false or lower self (identified with the
> "substance" of either the Atma, the monad, or the body fields)... Or,
confusing
> Buddha's "self" with the real individual or potential self consciousness
of the
> zero-point center of those "fields of consciousness" or forms of matter...
> That, as theosophy holds, are identified or analogous with the latent laya
points
> of individual consciousness of the eternal "Sleeping mother of Cosmos" -- 
> whose child is the Solar System, of which we are each a part.
>
> Therefore, as above so below... If the Mother has a latent individuality
or
> Self that is eternal, and does not identify itself with its temporary
forms -- 
> then, so has and does all its offspring (the awake and enlightened one's,
that
> is).
>
> But then, the confusion is understood. Buddha's teaching was directed
toward
> his ignorant followers.
> HPB's teaching is directed toward educated and hopefully intelligent
students
> of theosophy. The difference is obvious. But, neither of them expected
to
> form a New Religion around their teachings. (Although Blavatsky was wise
enough
> to avoid it in quotable writing, Buddha wasn't. Or, perhaps, his followers
just
> didn't listen to him carefully enough.:-)
>
> So, it's no wonder that the exoteric Buddhist gurus have such a hard job
> explaining what Anatta means, or what Buddha meant when he spoke of the
self...
> (Or, why the pseudo theosophists, and their pseudo religions and magical
baloney
> have to rest their ideas of what's true or what isn't on the authority of
> scrambled, second hand revelatory teachings channeled from imaginary
descended
> Masters and interpreted by relatively ignorant and biased recorders.)
>
> Be aware that when we speak of "eternal," we mean at least the lifetime of
> this Solar System and its planetary rounds and races. I'm sure the Buddha
> understood all that, and his words about it have been misinterpreted or
distorted
> about as much as the teachings of all the founders of all the other
dogmatized
> religions. The Buddhist Gurus are still arguing about it as much, I'm
sure, as
> are the Hebrew rabbis, the Muslim mullahs, The Hindu gurus, and the
Christian
> priests.
>
> So, lets not put Theosophy in that same boat with all the rest of the
fakirs
> and the fogheads. Theosophical metaphysics is essentially, a strictly
logical
> and scientific teaching based on the three fundamental principles, and
should
> be discussed solely in those terms. It's pointless to argue about the
> Buddhist's or any other organized religion's exoteric interpretations -- 
when we
> have all we can do trying to understand the subtle esoteric depths of
theosophy
> -- without getting caught up in side issues. Therefore, it's wise for us
to
> stay focussed, and let all others go on believing whatever they want to.
>
> Leonardo </:-)>
> (who is, was, and will be here, there, and everywhere else -- forever)
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>