RE: Response to Rich == DARKNESS emanative of LIGHT == "EMPTINESS," "VOID" "SPACE"
Jan 15, 1999 03:46 PM
by Dallas TenBroeck
>From what I read, study and think I understand I would say that
the moment that MANIFESTATION occurs you have FULLNESS EVERYWHERE
It is simultaneous and UNIVERSAL.
But, what does it emanate from unless it is to our senses a
'VOID' - or 'EMPTINESS' AND QUITE UNDESCRIBABLE?
Within the MANIFESTED UNIVERSE there is both the "visible and
tangible (on some plane of perception)" and the "intangible" or
that which on any particular plane gives it "limits" or
perceptions, when the PERCEPTIVE POWER is placed on that plane.
And this engages the MEMORY of any particular plane, but
simultaneously imprints the ETERNAL AKASA (the 7th level of the
ASTRAL LIGHT) with the memory of that event, thought and
However, the PERCEPTIVE POWER is not limited to any one plane -
or is it ?
Of is not, then can we say that its UNITY provides us with a clue
to the UNIVERSAL AND INDESCRIBABLE ONE UNITY ? Is it not in
THAT, that we have our true IMMORTALITY ? I have often wondered
about this but have no conclusions as yet.
The PERCEPTIVE POWER, if granted to the ATMA-BUDDHI-MANASIC
MONAD, is directly derived HPB states in several places,
particularly the TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE (pp. 66-76)
from the imponderable and indescribable SOURCE OF ALL - [ can we
call it THE TRANS-UNIVERSAL MONAD ? ] which to us would relegate
it to the VOID or EMPTINESS -- in so far as our senses and our
LOWER MANASIC thought-ability are concerned.
Is this illogical ?
Again we may be assigning to words ideas that are different in
meaning and implication.
What translator assigns to Buddha the use of "EMPTINESS," and
what does he say it is ? If we can get at a quote, then we can
perhaps resolve this. To me the word "emptiness" has little
meaning. Where is it that there is any "true emptiness?" What
boundaries can be placed so as to create an "emptiness ?" What
would be the use of such a "void ?"
Is the unitary CONSCIOUSNESS supposed to vanish ? and after all
the work of self-improvement through evolutionary processes that
so far are infinite in time, is there supposed to be an "end ?"
If so, why ?
To me this is about as insoluble as the Christian Church idea
(dogma ?) that man is trusted (or given) a "Soul," and he is
supposed to keep it "pure" through a turbulent life of many
temptations. If successful, this Soul is gifted with
"immortality" in a "heaven," and if "unsuccessful" it ends up in
an eternal Hell." Very few seem really scared into right
behavior by the latter idea I observe. It remains a puzzle in
logic, as I look on it.
As to "Void" I find in SD definitions (and synonyms) on pages:
"VOID:" SD I 42 (DARKNESS AND NON-EGO), 48 (ALAYA), 99 (the
WORD), 100 (CHAOS, SPACE, AIR-SOPH), 289 (NO "VOID" IN MANIFESTED
SPACE), 342-3 (BODY OF THE UNIVERSE), 367, 671,
"DARKNESS:" SD I 53 (ABSOLUTE), 354 (Ain-Soph), 70, 430 ("Light"
comprehends it not), 69 (condition during Pralaya), 350 (DEITY
is NOTHING), 40-1 (LIGHT emanates from DARKNESS - ALSO
PP. 70 110 II 485-6 488 492 ), I-99 (SPACE), II- 485-6
(PRINCIPLE of all THINGS), I-70 (THAT),
I-356 (the UNKNOWN).
And more under SPACE, UNKNOWABLE, UNMANIFEST.
On further thought I would say, that if time and space and matter
are infinite and timeless there can be no single "time" when the
UNIVERSE is TOTALLY "non-manifest."
Incidentally DURATION vs. "Time," or "timelessness," is another
puzzle, as it seems to be almost unthinkable with our
"time-limited" minds and their limited capacity. And then (is it
the Intuition ?) kicks in and we begin to be able to grasp at
universal and perhaps metaphysical concepts in which "limits" are
no longer rigid.
Manifestation and non-manifestation have to coexist as the
eternal diversity of DUALITY, and yet they do not stand isolated,
as the PERCEPTIVE POWER of MAHAT (Universal Mind and MINDS) will
for ever perceive their variants.
Therefore PARANISHPANA or PARABRAHMAM, PARMAPADA,
PARAMARTHA-SATYA, PARAMATMA, etc., are logical conclusions rather
than actualities (in the material sense that our minds are able
to frame of time and space). Hence we have no definitions, but
only the need for agreeing that there must be (logically) ONE
CAUSE or what we may agree to call the CAUSELESS CAUSE.
I wonder if that is of any help to us ?
> From: Jerry Schueler
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Response to Rich
>Void, emptiness, the non-manifest, the Causeless-cause, the
>unnamable, the immutable, the necessary "background" to
>manifestation - do these not suggest to you what the Buddha may
>in some translator's eyes called "emptiness ?''
No Dallas, you are NOT describing emptiness. You are describing
the Ground or what today is translated as the Basis. Emptiness
is form, and form is emptiness. G de Purucker and other early
Theosophists extolled the virtues of swabhava, which Buddhists
abhor being the chief characteristic of maya, and never mentions
the empty nature of forms which is a central Buddhist teaching.
If we really get into the doctrine of emptiness, we have to
that the divine Monad alone has any truth, all else being empty
of true substance. Theosophy does get to this point, but its
of countless monads (which aren't monads) is confusing and very
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application