Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00074)

Rodolfo "Rudy" Don, basically, you told three things:

(1) Notion of 'perfection' is relative, but there is 'true
perfection' which we can not tuch or discuss it.

(2) World is just at 'it is supposed to be now' so it is perfect
(on some, but important sense)

(3) Question 'Why world is not perfect' is not important
question, it is even not serious and it is better not to lose
time on it.

My answers:

(1) Well, it is relative on some sense, like most of our notions,
but I think it is sharp enough to state that world is not
perfect, like we may agree that chocolate is sweet although we do
not know about oranges, for example.  About 'true perfection': from
very first moment I tought on that, not on 'false
perfection'.  If you continue to relativize our notions, soon you
may say that there is 'true true perfection' etc.  It is not
completely without sense, but I'm not sure you want this
position.

(2) I will prefer to use two different notions.  It is quite
possible that world is 'as it is supposed to be' but not perfect
- at least in sense that perfect world can not contain neither
one point of pain in history, for example.  Position 'world is
just what it should be' is probably slightly easier to defend
than 'world is perfect'.  However, it is highly open to various
questions.

(3) I agree that there may be a lot position where this question
is completely or mostly unimportant (like buddhism, marxism, ...
), but there are positions which are so lucky.  Look on
gnosticism, for example.  Let us roughly describe gnosticism as
position which claim that knowledge about world (or essence of
...) is way to salvation (or identity with ...  or ...).  Such
position really require answer on this question.  Maybe we may
agree that gnosticism which do not know answer on this question
is in problems, or at least some answer must be known and
defended, although I do not see arguments.

Also, it is not unimportant question from theosophical
meta-position.  At least because theosophy require serious study
and comparation between religions, where gnosticism and on the
other side (at least for this question) buddhism are not
unimportant one.

Theosophist should know is this question fall of gnosticism
(described as philosophy or religion which require knowledge
about world for salvation, in very wide terms) and if it is not,
why.  Of course, theosophist may not know some things,
nevertheles of very strong methods he have.  In that case he may
say just as mentioned Vladeta Jerotic said to me: "Young man, you
are very proud.  I was proud when I was young too.  Nobody do not
know answer on that question.  Christianity do not know, Jung do
not know.  I search for it all my life but I did not found the
answer." Nice, isn't it? Note that he did not said that it is
essential question.

To make distance from him I must say that I did not read his
books and I cant tell are there good.  It is quite possible that
I will not like them if I had read them.

         ------ * -----

Answer which look best to me is 'Chaos rules'.  I do not like
this answer, but it is not complete tragedy.  I may expect that
after billions of eons chaos will create Buddha again and put him
in suffers and pain greater than anything he survived in all his
lifes.  It sounds pesimistic, but I believe that it is not in
contradiction with his teaching.  I believe that people asked him
about it, and his answer was probably his usual 'Do not think
about arrow, think how to get it out'

He will maybe answer on this question something like "It may be
or may not be, but there is a pain now, and you have a way out of
it.  This way consists of right action, right speaking, right
..."

Answer good enough for me!

I expect that some of you will try to deny that buddhism and
gnosticism are 'so different'.  OK, you may be right or wrong,
but at the first step we may agree that this question is
important (although maybe not essential).

All the best!

I'll still stay here for some time!