Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00045)

> But, in this case it holds.  The world with parts which are not
> perfect is certenly not perfect.  We may imagine better one,
> where (all, some, at least on of) imperfect parts is exchanged
> with perfect parts.
>
> You may say that imperfect parts are 'necessary' but it is quite
> different thing than that there not exist.  And lead us to sam
> question: why imperfection is necessary?

Perfection replaces imperfection.  It is a great work in which we
all take part.  Only the issue becomes confused because when we
are in the process of "knowing" imperfection, we may or may not
be right, as you said.  We are subject to human error.

> (2) In principle it may be wrong.  I may say that diamond is not
> perfect although it is.  But it is no more than general
> possibility that I'm wrong.  At the end it is reason why we are
> talking now.
>
> On concrete question I do not see the possibility that world is
> perfect although we do not recognize it.  For example, I am not
> perfect for sure.  Not to mention other things.  So, the world is
> not perfect.  Even you think that our perception is limited,
> which lead us to previous answer.

You see your intelligence as the governing, ruling, intelligence
in the world.  Suppose you delegate this responsibility to a
"higher" intelligence? Now your own reasoning fails to designate
any imperfection.  You are only here to accept what you are told
is true.

> (3) No, world is not relative, at least in meaning that I use and
> that I defined in first letter and which.  If you remember it, I
> defined the world as 'everything that exists at all' so it
> contain all our subjective or objective thoughts, 'underlying
> reality', God, etc.  It is very usual meaning of the word and
> nothing sensational: we just defined it.

World is not relative if the human being is capable of existing
in a unified body and mind.  Isn't that a miracle? That we are
all of the same form and capable of the same understandings.
World is relative if there are other forms of consciousness on
the planet with us, which I contend there are not, except in a
more ethereal sense, perhaps, the existence of the ascended
masters side by side with us.  I think that all of the animal,
plant, and mineral lives are dependent consciousnesses, which
means they do not exercise free will, but accept what mankind can
produce and offer them.

> (4) Maybe, even probably it is true.  But not only 'logical' or
> better rational answer is interesting.  Remember, Buddha's
> teaching was not 'only logical' but he also answered on such
> question 'Do not ask who send it arrow, just put it out'.  So,
> are the 'mystical tools' also to weak?

Isn't your question only relevant on an intellectual level? Man
is not too weak to live as intended, only at times too weak to
grow along ultra-axises (those we choose ourselves.) (In Buddha's
example, he turns us away from logic and towards action.) When
our own will weakens to the point that we are engulfed by our
mistakes, then we look elsewhere for a will that provides safety
and a measure of certainty.  We can find this in the ascended
masters.

Kazimir, I think you're doing a wonderful job of stimulating
thought and conversation.  Thank you.