Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00154)

Peter,

You have made some excellent points and I look forward to Eldon's and 
Jerry's replies.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc

Peter Merriott" wrote:
> Friends,
> 
> I don't have time at the moment to catch up with all the mails so I 
can only
> address some of the main points you have all raised.
> 
> Yes, Purucker does believe "Absolute" is a relative term and he 
likes to use
> it that way. I see Eldon and Jerry like to follow Purucker's 
definition.
> But it is also important to note that Purucker admits HPB does 
*not* use it
> in the same way as he does. (see Fountain Source - chapter on
> Parabrahm/Mulaprakriti).
> 
> "Absolute" has a number of definitions depending on whether it is 
used as a
> noun or adjective. It can mean the 'complete or utter perfection' 
of
> something, which is how Purucker tries to use it -unsuccessfully 
in my
> view. I think this is what Ian is objecting to, and quite 
rightly. For
> example, Purucker uses the term to designate the 'hierarch' of any 
Cosmic
> System, the Silent Watcher. He says there are any number of 
Absolutes
> because an "Absolute" is a cosmic jinvanmukta, an entity which 
has "reached
> a condition of relatively perfect liberation."
> 
> However, to say that something is only relatively perfect and yet an
> "Absolute" is a misuse of the term "Absolute" which would normally 
imply
> 'completely and utterly perfect' when used in that context.
> 
> When HPB uses the term "Absolute" she does not use it in the same 
way as
> Purucker, and he admits this. HPB more often than not uses the 
term
> "Absolute" as a noun. For in philosophy "Absolute" also 
means "the
> unconditional" "the unlimited" or "the ulimate reality." It is 
also used
> to mean "that which can exist without being related to anything 
else." (see
> Oxford dictionary for examples.) One only has to look at the 
passages
> Dallas has recently offered us from HPB's definitions of Absolute to
> demonstrate this (see "Response to Daniel - the Absolute")
> 
> So when HPB talks about ATMAN "...in the sense of the Absolute, and
> therefore, indivisible ALL, or Atma, [which] can neither be located 
nor
> limited in philosophy, being simply that which is in Eternity" (Key 
to
> Theo), she seems to be using the term "Absolute" in quite a 
different way to
> Purucker.
> ===================
> As to Jerry's proposition that "HPB clearly says each principle is 
on a
> plane". I notice that he likes to take HPB literally when she 
appears to
> agree with him and complain that other people are taking her 
literally when
> HPB contradicts him.
> 
> We need to ask, if ATMA "can neither be located nor limited in 
philosophy"
> then how does one locate it on the 3rd Plane of the Cosmos, as Jerry
> suggests, or on any one plane for that matter? HPB writes:
> 
> "...Atman in man, being of an unalloyed essence, the primordial 
FIRE (or the
> eternal and universal "that which has stood, stands and will
still 
stand")
> IS OF ALL THE PLANES." (CW XII 559, caps added)
> 
> HPB also writes that:
> 
> "The Great Breath of the Secret Doctrine is ATMAN, the etymology of 
which is
> 'eternal motion'." (ES Instruction No 3) This puts it at its source
> 'beyond' the first Logos and gives us an idea as to what HPB might 
mean when
> she says Atman is One with Parabrahm as its radiation.
> 
> We see the same thing again in another passage:
> 
> " Atma... is no entity but an emanation from the Absolute, and 
indivisible
> in reality from it."
> (CW XIV 49)
> 
> Note the term "in reality" - in other words however Atma may appear 
*to us*
> during Manifestation, and apparently to some people it appears to 
be Maya,
> "in reality" it is indivisible from the Absolute. Hence HPB writes:
> 
> "I make no difference between my Seventh Principle and the 
Universal Spirit
> or Parabrahm; nor do I believe in an individual, segregated spirit 
in me, as
> something apart from the whole."
> (CW V 52)
> 
> ...Peter