Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00176)

<<<DTB asks:	What's wrong with fundamentalism,>>>

What you do think that posting a bunch of quotes does? I have the SD and IU both on file, and I know how to use "find" on my Word wordprocesser, and so I could post quotes too if I wanted too. So can anyone. But what do they mean, Dallas? What is it that Blavatsky is really saying to us?
Every now and then you actually include your own take on a quote, and I have no problem with that at all, even where I may have a different interpretation. Posting quotes together with interpretations is OK (yeah, I know that typing is hard for you, and I am sorry about that).

Whats wrong with fundamentalism is that it assumes no interpretation is necessary, whereas in many cases it is. 

Case in point: Is the atma-buddhi monad really a monad? 

1. You have provided many quotes on this list that suggest that Blavatsky teaches that the atma-buddhi monad is real and permanent and eternal. She does, in fact, say this.

2. I have provided quotes on this list that suggest that Blavatsky teaches that a monad is an indivisible unit, that atma is spirit, and that both matter and spirit are maya. Thus atma-buddhi cannot be a monad, and has to be mayavic.

OK, so can we at least agree that on the surface there seems to be a conflict or disconnect in her teaching on this point?

I propose resolving this conflict by suggesting that some sentences are literal, while others have to be interpreted. As to the atma-buddhi monad, the conflict is resolved by saying that 2 is correct while 1 must be interpreted, and it is intepreted by saying that the atma-buddhi monad is relatively real and relatively eternal. Relative to what? To us human beings or to our human perspective. Now, Dallas, this is not just my own invention here. I got this from G de Purucker, who also says that the atma-buddhi monad is only real and eternal relative to our human perspective, that it changes, and that it is mavaic.

I ask you, and everyone else on this list to at least think about this for awhile. We Theosophists have two choices: we can resolve the apparent conflicts within her writings by using interpretation, or we can ignore them and let Theosophy go down the drain. The choice is ours.

Jerry S.
--