Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00185)

Dear Bjorn:					Jan 18th 1998

To my way of thinking, considering your comments to Mark Kusek

ABSOLUTE/ABSOLUTENESS is changeless and totally undefinable in any terms of
which we know.  Our present "brain-minds" are limited and to express the
"infinite," and the "eternal," we are like the ancient sage Mandukya only
able to say:  "Neti, neti, neti...not this, or that or any other."  I found
the best definitions in H P Blavatsky's THE SECRET DOCTRINE  pp. 4 to 18,
and further also in various places in that book this idea is reinforced.

It is as you say in your comments, and yet, like "fire, it offers aspects
of itself to which it is neither attached, nor detached, neither part, nor
apart from.  It is simply in a totally incomprehensible state, or rather
"no-state," so far as our understanding goes.  I use the illustration of
"fire," because like the fire of a candle, it can be used to light every
fire in our world, or even Universe, and the original fire will not be
diminished or extinguished (unless for lack of its particular and required
fuel, but one can push an allegory too far, and then it looses its sense.)

If you say that the "borderland" is the "Word," Verbum, Logos,
Shabda-Brahma, etc...) I would agree, but add that this as far as we can go
backward to a "source."  The ABSOLUTE might be called then, the
SOURCELESS-SOURCE ?

I also sense that the ancient Hindus when they spoke of "returning to
Nirvana, or to Parabrahm," meant that after its many gyrations and
incarnations, the Spirit-soul of a man, now being purified of any "Karmic
attachment" to a particular feeling, desire, or any singular condition of
"matter," could allow itself to be reabsorbed in the ALL, the ABSOLUTE.

However there seems to be a problem with that, and if one turns to HPB's
THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, at the end of the section named "The Two Paths"
(p. 47 in my book) she has a footnote on the PRATYEKHA BUDDHAS - this
indicates that those who choose such re-merging are selfishly motivated;
but, having become very elevated in spirituality, such selfishness only
earns them a very long time of severed relations with the process of
manifestation.

At the end of the VOICE OF THE SILENCE (3rd section) --p. 78 in my book --
a final question is asked of the candidate for Buddhahood:

	"Can there be bliss when all that lives must suffer?  shalt thou be saved
and hear the whole world cry?"   (see also SD II 246, 241-3)

Later, these "Passi Buddhas" are apparently obliged by Karma to return and
begin again to live and work in and through manifestation processes.  I
found a very suggestive description of this in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.  It is
in Vol. 2, p. 79-80 [ also, II 94, 275, 233fn, 275 --there, in a curious
footnote, HPB posits an "undying race" apparently, MINDS which are active,
wise and eternally creative ].  There "returning Nirvanees" are mentioned
as reincarnating again into the human family to pursue their evolution
there and also to assist in the developing of the human mind.  And, other
great mind Beings are described along with appropriate functions in the
developing stages of a Manvantaric evolutionary period.

The interesting thing to me is that the "word," logos, verbum, etc....
would seem to require a MIND able to understand IT and to use it as a basis
for all the developments that end up, so far as we can understand, in our
situation.

I would sense that we have a link established with the ideal and the ALL by
the fact that we have a mind which can be directed at WILL, and by CHOICE
to either the finite or the infinite (even if in concepts only).

I wonder if this is of any additional help, or if it tallies with your own
studies and findings ?				Dallas

		Dallas TenBroeck

dalval@nwc.net                        (818) 222-8024
                   23145 Park Contessa,
            Calabasas, Ca., 91302, USA.

----------
> From: "Bjorn Roxendal" <roxendal@usa.net>
> Subject: Re:freedom and aid, both pleasureful!!
> Date: Saturday, January 17, 1998 9:16 PM
>
> Mark Kusek wrote:
> >
> > Although speaking strictly metaphysically, the Absolute cannot have a
> > point of view or a relation to any thing. This would create a duality
> > and therefore not be Absolute.
> 		SNIP			<