Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00149)

Sanctius,

That would indeed be a good way of putting it. Thanks. I tried to answer
Ananda in the context of what he was studying, ie Patanajali. However your
statment is much closer to the Theosophical perspective.

But of course, such definitions as you and I have given, do not include the
ever unmanifested Absolute, which HPB refers to as "meta-spirit" in Key to
Theosophy:

"... though our teachings insist upon the identity of spirit and matter, and
though we say that spirit is potential matter, and matter simply
crystallized spirit (e.g., as ice is solidified steam), yet... the original
and eternal condition of all is not spirit but meta-spirit, so to speak,
(visible and solid matter being simply its periodical manifestation,)"

I notice that HPB and Sankaracharya both state that ATMAN in "not-spirit",
thus linking it to meta-spirit.

Kapila, does not seem to comment upon this meta-spirit, in his Sankhya
philisophy, while Patanjali, appears to refer only to the manifested ONE,
Eshwara.

Yes, I like what you say... "the universe was created by us, and not for
us". That seems to bring more of a sense of responsibility, doesn't it.
Thanks again.

Your comment on "we expanded from the middle" is very close to the first
symbol of the PROEM of the Secret Doctrine, as I imagine you already know,
ie the immaculate white disk within a dull black ground... which then
appears as the disk with the central point, this point being the germ that
will expand, becoming the manifested Kosmos.

...Peter







> -----Original Message-----
> From: sanctius@mail.com [mailto:sanctius@mail.com]
> Sent: 22 February 2001 23:17
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Purusha and prakriti
>
>
> Peter Merriott:
> >You ask about Purusha and Prakriti. Generally speaking,
> >one takes it to mean Spirit (purusha) and Matter (prakriti).
>
> One thought on that subject might be of some enlightment: Spirit is
> matter in it's highest point of evolution, and matter is spirit in
> it's lowest point of evolution. So, to become the highest, one must
> also become the lowest. That is the reason I think the physical
> universe was created by us and for us. One wants to get higher:
> Excelsior! We didn't descend here from the top, or from the heavens.
> We expanded from the middle. Forever, and after, and that is good.
>
> --
> http://www.kolumbus.fi/sanctius/myself.html
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>