Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00136)

Dallas: "Something has to "bridge the gap"

Brigitte: Dallas: "..."

But Dallas, that means the universe is not forever if there are gaps 
and it becomes like a jig saw puzle that seem more a construct of the 
intellect then anything else. Of course the intellect, just like the 
physical body, is afraid of eternity, cannot comprehend it, why ?
Because the brain, the seat of the intellect and the physical body, 
are intended to dy, become compost just like the leaves of a three 
do each year, and change(forget), in order to be forever.

The big bang theory made famous since 1931 is in essence a bit like 
the beginning/end "gapp" universe a la Dallas, SD, making for a 
good "hall of mirrors" game.(sounds like you will have fun afther you 
dy)
In fact the inventer of the big bang theory was a Belgian priest 
called P.G. Lemaitre, and I suspect he might have been 
subcounsciously influenced by the bible that as is known has a 
creation myth wich in character doesn't differ that much from 
Blavatsky's SD.

In 1929 on the other hand Fritz Zwicky who tought Astro Physics at 
the University of Passadena (no not Perucker's place) already laid 
the foundation for the now widely accepted scientific knowledge that 
the Universe is without beginning and end, more like the Budhist 
world view that doesn't need a personal God (make that" God's" in the 
SD) to talk away beginnings and endings plus gaps inbetween. 


Brigitte

--- In theos-talk@y..., <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> 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
> 
> ------------------------------------------