Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00077)

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.

Since I am caught up in this web of concepts and opinions I
better continue and tangle myself even more.  Kazimir: I accept
your definition of "Perfection", but I refuse to use it myself.
To me, the world is the way is supposed to be.  It couldn't be
different.  It couldn't be better, it couldn't be worse.  Since
the world is a reflexion of us: its inhabitants.  Could we be any
different? I don't think so.  We are what we created ourselves in
the past.  We are the children created by us in the past.  We are
our own evolutionary path, we are our own Karma.  And since the
world is us, the world is the product of its own Karma.

> (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 ..."

I think that 'Chaos' is a good term to describe our world.  At
least this term doesn't try to judge or to evaluate something as
big as our world.  After all we're talking about our humanity
plus all the other inhabitants that populate our planet.  Of
course only man has free will and if there is one species that
has some responsibility for the suffering that aflicts our world,
it is He, Man who is to blame.  For being still caught up in the
illusion of separateness.

Best wishes,

Rudy