Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Discussion on literature other than by the Star of Azazel.
User avatar
Polyhymnia
Soror
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:20 pm

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Polyhymnia » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:18 pm

5. Darkness alone filled the boundless all, for Father, Mother and Son were once more one, and the son had not awakened yet for the new wheel and his pilgrimage thereon.

'Darkness is Father-Mother: light their son', says an old Eastern proverb. Darkness, then, is the eternal matrix in which the sources of light appear and disappear. When the whole universe was plunged in sleep- had returned to its one primordial element- there was neither enter of luminosity, nor eye to perceive light, and darkness necessarily filled the boundless all. The Father-Mother are the male and female principles in root-nature, the opposite poles that manifest in all things on every plane of Cosmos, or Spirit and Substance, in a less allegorical aspect, the resultant of which is the Universe, or the Son. That which is called 'wheel' is the symbolical expression for a world or globe. The 'Great Wheel' is the whole duration of our Cycle of Being."

If I'm not mistaken it looks like you hit the nail on the head, guys. Mother-Father (parent space) Son (universe). It's funny because this particular one had me realizing just how Christian-centric my associations are. My brain immediately went to the Christian trinity of father, son, holy spirit when I read Father, Mother, Son, with the son being Jesus and his pilgrimage being when he came and was crucified. Interesting where the brain goes.

6. The Seven Sublime Lords and the Seven Truths had ceased to be, and the universe, the son of necessity, was immersed in Parinishpanna (absolute perfection, Parinirvana, which is yong-grub), to be out-breathed by that which is and yet is not, naught was.

'The seven sublime lords are the Seven Creative Spirits, the Dhyani-Chohans, who correspond the the Hebrew Elohim. 'Parinishpanna' is the absolute perfection to which all existences attain at the close of a great period of activity, and in which they rest during the succeeding period of repose. In Tibetan it is called Yong-grub. The appearance and disappearance of the Universe are pictured as an out breathing and inbreathing of 'The Great Breath', which is eternal, and which, being Motion, is one of the three aspects of the Absolute- Abstract Space and Duration being the other two. When the 'Great Breath' is projected, it is called the Divine Breath, and is regarded as the breathing of the Unknowable Deity- the One Existence- which breathes out a thought, as it were, which becomes the Kosmos. So also is it when the Divine Breath is inspired again the Universe disappears into the bosom of 'The Great Mother', who then sleeps 'wrapped in her invisible robes'. By 'that which is and yet is not' is meant the Great Breath itself."

I also believe the seven sublime lords are the seven archetypes. Interesting to also see the correspondence to the Hebrew Elohim.
"Limited love asks for possession of the beloved, but the unlimited asks only for itself." -Kahlil Gibran
User avatar
Polyhymnia
Soror
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:20 pm

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Polyhymnia » Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:27 pm

7. The causes of existence had been done away with; The visible that was, and the invisible that is, rested in eternal non-being, the one-being.
"The Causes of Existence mean not only the physical causes known to science, but the metaphysical causes, the chief of which is the desire to exist, an outcome of Nidana and Maya. This desire for a sentient life shows itself in everything, from an atom to a sun, and is a reflection of the Divine Thought propelled into objective existence, into a law that the Universe should exist."

Looks like the desire the exist is key. It reminds me of a thread on the forums here where there is talk of souls being born who just seemingly needed to exist.

8. Alone, the one form of existence stretched boundless, infinite, causeless, in a dreamless sleep; and life pulsated unconscious in universal space throughout that all-presence which is sensed by the "opened eye" of the dangma.

'Dangma means a purified soul, one who has become the highest adept. His 'opened eye' is the inner spiritual eye of the seer. Dreamless sleep is one of the seven states of consciousness known in Oriental esotericism. In each of these states a different portion of the mind comes into action. The term 'dreamless sleep' in this case is applied allegorically to the Universe to express a condition somewhat analogous to that state of consciousness in man, which, not being remembered in a waking state, seems a blank."
"Limited love asks for possession of the beloved, but the unlimited asks only for itself." -Kahlil Gibran
User avatar
Silvaeon
Frater
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Silvaeon » Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:10 am

Thanks for the notes, Polyhmnia! They seem to just be very, very condensed versions of the larger text, but that's probably not a bad thing.

9. But where was the Dangma when the Alaya of the Universe was in Paramartha and the great wheel was Anupadaka?

Much of Blavatsky's writing here about the differences in eastern schools of thought and between western philosophers is a bit beyond me, but I get the point that she's making, which is that "this pantheistic idea of a general Spirit-Soul pervading all Nature is the oldest of all the philosophical notions." Alaya is described as the universal soul, Anima Mundi. Paramartha as absolute being and consciousness which are absolute non-being and unconsciousness. Anupadaka means "parentless", which is often used to describe the Dhyan-Chohans. In the case of this line of the stanza, "when speaking of the Universe in its formless, eternal, or absolute condition, before it was fashioned by the “ Builders”—the expression, “ the Universe was Anupadaka.”
User avatar
Smaragd
Frater
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:27 am

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Smaragd » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:36 pm

"Out of the Seven Truths and Revelations, or rather revealed secrets, four only have been handed to us, as we are still in the Fourth Round, and the world also has only had four Buddhas, so far.This is a very complicated question, and will receive more ample treatment later on.So far “ There are only Four Truths, and Four Vedas ” — say the Hindus and Buddhists.For a similar reason Irenæus insisted on the necessity of Four Gospels."
It would be interesting to find out if these truths can be found from the different gospels and if and how in their emphasis builds upon the initiations of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

"“Paranishpanna” is the absolute perfection to which all existences attain at the close of a great period of activity, or Maha-Manvantara, and in which they rest during the succeeding period of repose. In Tibetan it is called Yong-Grüb. ... It is only a true Idealist who can understand it. Everything has to be viewed as ideal, with the exception of Paranirvana, by him who would comprehend that state, and acquire a knowledge of how Non Ego, Voidness, and Darkness are Three in One and alone Self-existent and perfect. It is absolute, however, only in a relative sense, for it must give room to still further absolute perfection, according to a higher standard of excellence in the following period of activity — just as a perfect flower must cease to be a perfect flower and die, in order to grow into a perfect fruit,"

It is a vital reminder how perfection is or any kind of spirits are, perhaps more familiarly, ideals. Paranirvana can't be thought as ideal as in its absoluteness there is no chelas to attain an ideal.

"the ideal spirit of that cause.It is, in its secondary stage, the Svâbhâvat of the Buddhist philosopher, the eternal cause and effect, omnipresent yet abstract, the self-existent plastic Essence"
It's interesting that this ideal spirit is considered to be living plastic essence. Reminds me how spirits are seemingly immovable, yet they live in us and perhaps are themselves evolving in someway unimaginable to me. This absolute undifferentiated potential is described spirit-soul including the masculine & the feminine principles, both of which are to my understanding described as "above" manifestation (the moon reflected on water – our sensory data interpreted by the brain and the rest of the microcosmic system), where as I would understand the feminine (soul) to include the manifested side of the absolute. Thus I'm a bit confused how the illusory world is (a)part of the absolute. I can relate to Aquilas comment on this

"The matter-moving Nous, the animating Soul, immanent in every atom, manifested in man, latent in the stone, has different degrees of power ; and this pantheistic idea of a general Spirit-Soul pervading all Nature is the oldest of all the philosophical notions."
This piece of text reminds me of the Virging Mary that is thought upon the Rosary of Azazel as the "lofty essence of nature". Anima (mundi) & Virgin Mary (maybe even Nous & Archæus?) might be though as more or less the same thing. This soul of ours, from which our genius is extracted, is kind of a bosom of a gate where the seed of Christ, seen on the vesica piscis, lies at.
Silvaeon wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:31 am
Paranishpanna seems to be a synonym of paranirvana, when ". . . everything becomes one, all individualities are merged into one, yet each knowing itself, a mysterious teaching indeed. But then, that which to us now is non-consciousness or the unconscious, will then be absolute consciousness" (theosophy wiki). This only occurs "at the end of the maha-manvantara, when the universal pralaya sets in". So, this is the state the universe finds itself in during the pralaya we're currently talking about.
The need or desire that leads the absolute state to manifest itself periodically is disturbing to me. Why would the absolute need anything, especially why would it need to reach towards self-consciousness or bleed out to hopeless states where misunderstanding raises hellish prison walls over the skies and breeds monsters of all kinds? To try and answer my own question, the meaningless emptiness mirrors the meaningful absolute non-consciousness, which the absolute has to include in order to be absolute. Blavatskys commentary reasons that the manifested illusory world isn't absolute nature in it's finite condition, but I think the absolute has to include the finite images and reflections also. Maybe Blavatskys comments are necessary to understand the illusory nature of the concrete world, or maybe I'm missing something here? I think I understand the 'absolute = causeless/parentless argument', but still the garments can't be outside the absolute all, no matter how they are our own construction to crawl back inside the womb. There's divinity to be found in desire.
Silvaeon wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:15 am
The desire for life is described as the result of the Divine Thought being propelled outwards into the universe - which has not yet occurred - so the "causes of existence had been done away with". The desire to exist also being described as an outcome of Maya awakens some questions in me, and I wish Blavatsky would have spent more time on this point since I'm not sure I grasp her meaning here. Is it that existence is more of a karmic necessity occurring with or without the "desire" to, making that desire illusion?
I'm interpreting the Maya to be the hellish prison of natural laws thrown on the face of beings of Maya and to untangle the karmic mess there is divine desire in the core of every desire to create and destroy until parapralaya.
User avatar
Silvaeon
Frater
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Silvaeon » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:29 am

Smaragd wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:36 pm
Silvaeon wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:31 am
Paranishpanna seems to be a synonym of paranirvana, when ". . . everything becomes one, all individualities are merged into one, yet each knowing itself, a mysterious teaching indeed. But then, that which to us now is non-consciousness or the unconscious, will then be absolute consciousness" (theosophy wiki). This only occurs "at the end of the maha-manvantara, when the universal pralaya sets in". So, this is the state the universe finds itself in during the pralaya we're currently talking about.
The need or desire that leads the absolute state to manifest itself periodically is disturbing to me. Why would the absolute need anything, especially why would it need to reach towards self-consciousness or bleed out to hopeless states where misunderstanding raises hellish prison walls over the skies and breeds monsters of all kinds? To try and answer my own question, the meaningless emptiness mirrors the meaningful absolute non-consciousness, which the absolute has to include in order to be absolute. Blavatskys commentary reasons that the manifested illusory world isn't absolute nature in it's finite condition, but I think the absolute has to include the finite images and reflections also. Maybe Blavatskys comments are necessary to understand the illusory nature of the concrete world, or maybe I'm missing something here? I think I understand the 'absolute = causeless/parentless argument', but still the garments can't be outside the absolute all, no matter how they are our own construction to crawl back inside the womb. There's divinity to be found in desire.
I think you more or less answered your own question here, but it got me thinking, so I'll comment a bit more anyways. I think it's not so much a question of the "need" or desire" of the Absolute for periodical manifestation and dissolution, as it is simply a cyclic law of the universe(s). Being Absolute, it contains in itself these laws of the universe, and being One, it cannot be separate from those laws. So while our lives are subject to the cycles of birth, life, and death, the same cycles must also apply to the Absolute itself albeit on a scale much larger and harder to comprehend. While there is indeed some sort of horror to this endless cycle which I can well relate to, I find some peace in it as well, as it feels as natural as breathing. Which, it is, if we take into account the metaphors Blavatsky has been using about the Divine Breath inhaling and exhaling creation and desire for life.


Smaragd wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:36 pm
Silvaeon wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:15 am
The desire for life is described as the result of the Divine Thought being propelled outwards into the universe - which has not yet occurred - so the "causes of existence had been done away with". The desire to exist also being described as an outcome of Maya awakens some questions in me, and I wish Blavatsky would have spent more time on this point since I'm not sure I grasp her meaning here. Is it that existence is more of a karmic necessity occurring with or without the "desire" to, making that desire illusion?
I'm interpreting the Maya to be the hellish prison of natural laws thrown on the face of beings of Maya and to untangle the karmic mess there is divine desire in the core of every desire to create and destroy until parapralaya.
This makes a lot more sense to me now, thanks.
User avatar
Smaragd
Frater
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:27 am

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Smaragd » Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:47 am

On Proem page 21 (71/726 of the whole book) it is written the Stanza II describes a state that have only little difference for a western mind when seen next to the state of Stanza I. While the Stanza I woundedly expressed the "first" state by negatives, what the absolute state is not, the Stanza II seems to contain the sleeping ideas of the creators ie. planetary spirits that were not in the state of Stanza I. The sleep is no more dreamless is the diference I suppose.

1. b. Without the bliss made possible by the Paramartha, I think evolution wouldn't be possible. We would be detached from our soul, through which the bliss of non-being is transmitted in later stages of the cycle (healthy libido leading us towards the bliss in spiraling manner). In this state of the second stanza - the moment before the sunrise - it's as if the bliss is about to turn over to ignite the nightly horrors in the soul. A preparation for new initiations.

If the bliss of Paranishpanna is only possible because the self analysing consciousness, ie. Paramârtha, which is supposed to be something that remains the annihilation, it felt contradicting the 2. b. part of the poem "No! there was neither silence, nor sound. Naught save ceaseless, eternal breath (Motion) which knows itself not ". Interestingly related to this, the commentary noted: " To know itself or oneself, necessitates consciousness and perception (both limited faculties in relation to any subject except Parabrahm), to be cognized." (Italics by me).
I've interpreted Parabrahm as a sort a absolute subject of/in the Paranishpanna. The eternal breath that knows itself not I've connected to this same "area". How do you see these unconscious an conscious concepts connecting in this phase where polarities seem to be melted in to one? Is this one of those sacred contradictions? Maybe I'm reading this with a bit too much of logical scrutiny.
User avatar
Cerastes
Soror
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:31 pm

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Cerastes » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:01 pm

Stanza2.1 wrote:WHERE WERE THE BUILDERS, THE LUMINOUS SONS OF MANVANTARIC DAWN (a)? . . . . IN THE UNKNOWN DARKNESS IN THEIR AH-HI (Chohanic, Dhyani-Buddhic)PARANISHPANNA, THE PRODUCERS OF FORM (rupa)FROM NO-FORM (arupa), THE ROOT OF THE WORLD -- THE DEVAMATRI* AND SVABHAVAT, RESTED IN THE BLISS OF NON-BEING


The creators of the universe aka sons of manvantric dawn rest in darkness/Paranishpanna (I assume, they are called „sons of dawn“ because they are bringing the universe to day aka manifestation later on)

Parnishpanna, or none-being is absolute being because it is in no relation to anything, only to the absolute truth. It cannot be in relation to anything since it is not separated from anything. It is the final state of everything which and without self-awareness it simply means extinction. As I understand it, the monad needs to undergo the evolutionary process of manifestation aka duality to return into unity of Parnishpanna in a state of self-consciousness. Now I also understand what was probably meant by the “sleeping time”. Blavatsky’s “non-being” is not non-existence but non-manifestation. Therefore the potential must have existed in Parnishanna but it did not jet fall into manifestation because it was still in a state of unity. This is probably what was called the “idea of time”. As brother Smaragd already stated out, In Stanza 2 nothing is yet manifested but the pre-state of differentiation is described.

Stanza 2.2 wrote: WHERE WAS SILENCE? WHERE WERE THE EARS TO SENSE IT? NO! THERE WAS NEITHER SILENCE, NOR SOUND (a). NAUGHT SAVE CEASELESS, ETERNAL BREATH (Motion)WHICH KNOWS ITSELF NOT


Silence was not because there were no ears to sense it. Again, this this refers to the self-consciousness that needs to be there in order to make sound/silence exist as polar opposites.
Blavatsky uses the example of hydrogen and oxygen that are combined to water but still exist in a different state as they are not annihilated.
Smaragd wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:47 am
How do you see these unconscious an conscious concepts connecting in this phase where polarities seem to be melted in to one? Is this one of those sacred contradictions? Maybe I'm reading this with a bit too much of logical scrutiny.

The conscious state of unity, or Parnishpanna is probably the preservation of the fragements of pure being, which are absorbed in the unity and do not completely merge, but remain intact. Because if they would just melt into unity, they would be anhilated and this is the unconcious state of Parnishpanna. In a state of unity, everthing that is based on duality must neccesarily disappear and what stays is the self-aware core, so to say.
“Granny Weatherwax was not lost. She wasn't the kind of person who ever became lost. It was just that, at the moment, while she knew exactly where SHE was, she didn't know the position of anywhere else.”
(Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)
User avatar
Smaragd
Frater
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:27 am

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Smaragd » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:04 pm

Extra week for the Stanza II and its commentary.

The primordial substance is meantioned often. It is akasha, which many remember from the term akashic records where from Blavatsky reportedly pulled information in the form of books to help her write the Isis Unveiled. For such a book to be visible to the material eyes, like they were described by Olcott, Blavatsky must have followed the records of the informing principle of/that is the primordial substance tracing it to more and more dense planes until a material book is pointed to have link to some particular idea. These innumerable links are like a matrix of meaning where different objects like a sword or cross or my beating heart and other events in time, like ones hand gently touching a tree are linked to certain ideas. To me it is important to understand these ideas to be abstract like the ideas of archetypes are living essences. The plane that is akasha corresponds to the principle manas according to Blavatsky and the Theosophy Wiki, which ties the seemingly detached and random pool of ideas to the larger context of oneness of the higher triad.
The Secret Doctrine wrote:Privation meant in the mind of the great philosopher that which the Occultists call the prototypes impressed in the Astral Light — the lowest plane and world of Anima Mundi.
Privation is an interesting choice of word here. A dictionary points it means "a state in which food and other essentials for well-being are lacking". As we move with our imagination from akasha towards astral light, aether and coarse material plane the coarseness draws more and more effective limitations and thus something is left out atleast to the imagination that falls in the confinement and illusion of the lower planes.
User avatar
Silvaeon
Frater
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Silvaeon » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:31 am

Finally, a little bit of time to sit down and enough caffeine-fueled focus so start catching up...


Smaragd wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:47 am
While the Stanza I woundedly expressed the "first" state by negatives, what the absolute state is not, the Stanza II seems to contain the sleeping ideas of the creators ie. planetary spirits that were not in the state of Stanza I. The sleep is no more dreamless is the diference I suppose.
This is what I arrived at as well. The first stanza deals almost exclusively in "things that are not" while the second stanza poses more questions about the state of the creators, and it feels like there is more potential even though the states being described are nearly identical.


1. . . . . Where were the builders, the luminous sons of manvantaric dawn? . . . . In the unknown darkness in their Ah-hi Paranishpanna, the producers of form from no-form, the root of the world—the Devamatr* and Svâbhâvat, rested in the bliss of nonbeing.
One thing I find interesting about this doctrine is that the Absolute is not viewed as the "creator", the way Christianity views God as the creater, but instead it contains within itself all the tools and potential for creation - and it is the Watchers which create from this potential.

Cerastes wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:01 pm
Blavatsky’s “non-being” is not non-existence but non-manifestation. Therefore the potential must have existed in Parnishpanna but it did not yet fall into manifestation because it was still in a state of unity.
I really like the way you put this and agree.


A sentence which has stuck with me over the past few weeks: It is only “ with a mind clear and undarkened by personality, and an assimilation of the merit of manifold existences devoted to being in its collectivity (the whole living and sentient Universe),” that one gets rid of personal existence, merging into, becoming one with, the Absolute, and continuing in full possession of Paramârtha.


2. . . . . Where was silence ? Where were the ears to sense it ? No! there was neither silence, nor sound. Naught save ceaseless, eternal breath (Motion) which knows itself not .

Smaragd wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:47 am
If the bliss of Paranishpanna is only possible because the self analysing consciousness, ie. Paramârtha, which is supposed to be something that remains the annihilation, it felt contradicting the 2. b. part of the poem "No! there was neither silence, nor sound. Naught save ceaseless, eternal breath (Motion) which knows itself not ". Interestingly related to this, the commentary noted: " To know itself or oneself, necessitates consciousness and perception (both limited faculties in relation to any subject except Parabrahm), to be cognized." (Italics by me).
I've interpreted Parabrahm as a sort a absolute subject of/in the Paranishpanna. The eternal breath that knows itself not I've connected to this same "area". How do you see these unconscious an conscious concepts connecting in this phase where polarities seem to be melted in to one? Is this one of those sacred contradictions? Maybe I'm reading this with a bit too much of logical scrutiny.
I think there are two different elements at play in this question. The "ceaseless, eternal breath" of the Absolute which "knows itself not" cannot be conscious of itself, as "Infinity cannot comprehend finiteness," and this sort of self-analyzing consciousness that we are familiar with is always finite. The Eternal Breath is beyond that. Assuming our own consciousness' are able to achieve Paramârtha and the subsequent bliss of Paranishpanna, this is our finite selves merging with infinity, and then paradoxically becoming both non-being (to our finite consiousness) and absolute being, which, as our once finite consciousness, on some level is able to be conscious of its new state. At least that's how I'm interpreting it, although I'm sure I didn't explain myself very well and could be off still. I'm lacking the proper words for this sort of depth. This is fascinating and difficult stuff!


I try to not get caught up in semantics and take Blavatsky's advice: " Under this apparent contradiction in terms, there rests a fact of Nature to realize which in the mind, rather than to argue about words, is the important thing."
User avatar
Smaragd
Frater
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:27 am

Re: Reading Circle (Blavatsky: The Secret Doctrine)

Postby Smaragd » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:33 pm

Silvaeon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:31 am
Smaragd wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:47 am
If the bliss of Paranishpanna is only possible because the self analysing consciousness, ie. Paramârtha, which is supposed to be something that remains the annihilation, it felt contradicting the 2. b. part of the poem "No! there was neither silence, nor sound. Naught save ceaseless, eternal breath (Motion) which knows itself not ". Interestingly related to this, the commentary noted: " To know itself or oneself, necessitates consciousness and perception (both limited faculties in relation to any subject except Parabrahm), to be cognized." (Italics by me).
I've interpreted Parabrahm as a sort a absolute subject of/in the Paranishpanna. The eternal breath that knows itself not I've connected to this same "area". How do you see these unconscious an conscious concepts connecting in this phase where polarities seem to be melted in to one? Is this one of those sacred contradictions? Maybe I'm reading this with a bit too much of logical scrutiny.
I think there are two different elements at play in this question. The "ceaseless, eternal breath" of the Absolute which "knows itself not" cannot be conscious of itself, as "Infinity cannot comprehend finiteness," and this sort of self-analyzing consciousness that we are familiar with is always finite. The Eternal Breath is beyond that. Assuming our own consciousness' are able to achieve Paramârtha and the subsequent bliss of Paranishpanna, this is our finite selves merging with infinity, and then paradoxically becoming both non-being (to our finite consiousness) and absolute being, which, as our once finite consciousness, on some level is able to be conscious of its new state. At least that's how I'm interpreting it, although I'm sure I didn't explain myself very well and could be off still. I'm lacking the proper words for this sort of depth. This is fascinating and difficult stuff!
Ah yes, the absolute consciousness is more in the manner of everything happening or being, while our finite consciousness is more like observing differences and limits. Thank you for your insight! it seems so obvious now.
Silvaeon wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:31 am
I try to not get caught up in semantics and take Blavatsky's advice: " Under this apparent contradiction in terms, there rests a fact of Nature to realize which in the mind, rather than to argue about words, is the important thing."
I have this thought that a lot of this stuff can't be understood with logical scrutiny, but Blavatsky seems to have been so learned on metaphysics that I can not but try to see the logical paths there also. To me it seems like metaphysics work on this area that is both super logical and elusive. I feel like there's much to learn from the logical system Blavatsky tries to lay out here, and am a bit bummed that seeing both of these facets is so hard. Well to be honest it's also quite exciting challenge.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest