Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00051)

December 9, 2005

What was presented (as usual) are a selection of references and definitions
that THEOSOPHY makes.

They are thought provoking are they not ? 

Perhaps the paradoxes that confront the "Kama-manas" are leads to
Buddhi-manas ? I wonder also, and with the "Mikado" I say: "It is a
puzzlement!"

Dallas


-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:20 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: ESOTERIC AND EXOTERIC ( 2 )

Dallas provided some interesting quotes.

<< "Consciousness is ONE throughout the Universe - in man and
matter, element and forces."	Theosophy, Vol. 17, p. 287
"Esoteric philosophy teaches that everything lives and is
conscious, but not that all life and consciousness are similar to
those of human or even animal beings." S.D. I 49

Think about it folks, how can consciousness be "one throughout the
universe" and "not similar" at the same time? There is no way that we can
take such statements literally without conflict. And as soon as we say
"well, she means..." then we are interpreting, aren't we?


<< "Whatever plane our consciousness may be acting in, both we and
the things belonging to that plane are, for the time being, our
only realities...only when we shall have reached the absolute
Consciousness, and blended our own with it, shall we be free from
delusions." SD I 40 >>

The first sentence refers to a linear experience of the planes and does not
apply to multiple experience where the planes are blended. Her "absolute
Consciousness" refers to nonduality, and this is what the cap C means. Here
her "delusions" refer to Maya, and the sentence indicates to me that she
was well aware of the Mind Only's equation of maya and the duality of
subject and object.


<< The Monad is not only a duad (SPIRIT / PRIMORDIAL MATTER) or
Atma-Buddhi conjoined, but associated with it is the MIND.>>

If Theosophists are going to blatantly call a monad a duad, then why not
call an apple an orange? Outsiders see this kind of thing going on and
rightly steer clear of us.


<< If the Mind stands as the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS (with its roots in the
ABSOLUTE) it is eternally, midway between these two primordial
Monadic poles (Spirit and Matter), and is the impartial and
impersonal WITNESS (Perceiver) of all changes. Thus the MONAD is
triune. >>

Rather than conceptualizing mind as between dualistic poles, how about
trying to conceive mind as transcending duality altogether? It is not
"between" rather it is "beyond."

There are two kinds of consciousness, dualistic and nondualisitc. Any
consciousness that is a witcness or a perceive (I prefer the term observer)
is dualistic and therefore mayavic. 

The concept that a monad is a duad is bad enough, but then to compound the
error and say that it is a triad is more than I can take. It is not
logical. It makes absolutely no sense to me and makes all three words --
monad, duad, and triad, meaningless. The monad is an indivisible unit.
Atma-buddhi is a duad. Atma-buddhi-manas is a triad. Why do we deliberately
confound these three very separate things?

Jerry S.



---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-56348C@list.vnet.net