Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00127)

Dear theosophists,


I'd like to comment this Dallas TenBroeck's cite:

 >> Generally as I read in Theosophy the term "Unmanifested" relates to the
    ABSOLUTE or to ABSOLUTENESS, which is a logical necessity, a background
    from which any "manifestation" (or MAYA) emanates. <<

By my opinion, it is too hard word for that meaning. If there is something
'emanated' from that you called ABSOLUTE, than it is clearly that ABSOLUTE
is (at least in some meaning) different from that what is emanated. In that
case
ABSOLUTE is limited by this difference.

We may propose next characterization of ABSOLUTE:
If something is ABSOLUTE, than there is nothing different from it, in any
possible meaning of the world 'different'.

If one decide to limit this obviousely extremly strong requirement, he just
limited ABSOLUTENESS. This limitation is not important for most theories.
One may use somehow  smaller words, like THE PRINCIPLE, MOKSHA, GOD, THE
ONE, ETERNAL, SUPREME REALITY, SUPREME BEING, GREAT ARCHITECT OF THE
UNIVERSE, INFINITY etc... instead the ABSOLUTE.

This arguments are similar to what I wrote here before few months against
perfection, although not completely same: they are more logical and do not
involve ethical propositions.

There is one good side-efect of avoiding of that word. Communication is
better if we do not use big words. Licitation in words is often reason of
clashes and misunderstanding. However, it is not an argument.


Sincerely,

______________________________________________________________
           Kazimir Majorinc, dipl. ing. math.
  Faculty of Natural Sciences and Math, University of Zagreb
 mailto:kmajor@public.srce.hr   http://public.srce.hr/~kmajor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~