Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00000)

Feb 1st.

Dear Bjorn:

Enjoyed your thinking about cosmology and cosmogenesis.

As I understand it.

1.	A BACKGROUND which we cannot do away with conceptually is denominated
(for our limited minds at present) the "ABSOLUTE."  Or, "ABSOLUTENESS" if
some idea of quality or being is demanded.  In point of fact it has no
relation to anything that is either 'created" or "manifest."

Yet, as a concept, as something that is anterior, basic, causal, but cannot
be limited or defined is required by us.

2.	Passing, then, from the ABSOLUTE, the concept of limitation is
introduced.

First:	as an Idea, as a Concept, as a precursor to limitation.

What dimensions are given to it?   Note:  the only concepts we can form of
it are in terms of our limits, conceptually.  So we may say:

	Time limits:  	duration, eternity.

	Motion:		pulsation, vibration, a general tone to which all
				else is related

	Space:		 unlimited universality

Second:		As we are mind beings, we sense that there has to be a principle
in operation, from the very first, that has relation to consiousness,
intelligence, sensation, and memory (as well as anticipation).  With this
comes a sense of time, space and motion as "historical " (memory) and
"verifiable" (present time) facts.  Anticipation implies a hope for
continuity and that there is a law which predicates effects that are
consequent upon causes generated.  So the idea of KARMA seems to begin
there.

KARMA is not only the great general law of multiple evolutions (creations),
but
also within any one "creation/evolutionary period" it operates to make
causes and effects balance and harmonize.  We see such a balance in Nature,
which Science, researches in all departments.

But in the "moral plane" we find it difficult to relate cause to effect
because we cannot perceive such causes as may have been generated in an
early incarnation of the Spirit/soul of a mind-being.

The necessity for multiple mind-beings appears to be a requirement in the
general scheme of evolution, assuming that evolution has for purpose the
generating of minds that are progressively able to encompass the whole
nature and purpose of any evolution/manifestation/creation.

To me, humans appear to be in this condition.  The evolution of our minds
would then include a perception of all the phenomena and relationships of
living is such a multi-dimensional world, with many-facultied beings all
around us.  KARMA would in general encompass all possible relationships
between humans and also those that exist in every part of the
"manifestation."

Third:		If to SPIRIT we oppose the polarity of MATTER we have contrast.
Contrast gives many variables and intermediates, just as light in space is
only perceived when there is an obstacle to it,  (dust, a wall, some shape
-- which in turn cast shadows behind them limiting the luminosity --
if from a single source.)

Fourth;		If SPIRIT and MATTER are to be perceived.  a PERCEIVER is
necessary .  To my mind this requires a MIND-BEING.  Thus the actual point
of differentiation from/within the ABSOLUTE, passes from singularity to a
triad:
SPIRIT, MIND, MATTER.

Would it not be logical to think that such a MIND-BEING would partake more
of the nature of SPIRIT than of matter?  Although, to be accurate, such a
MIND-BEING would also have to learn or acquire the faculty of penetrating
to all and every level of matter?  In other words, understanding of our
environment would have to be complete, and one life-time is inadequate.
Hence the concept of REINCARNATION, or multiple births, where the
"mind-soul-spirit" is able to pick up and continue its improvement.    [
Question:  Why should there be 'forgetfulness' between adjacent lives ?
Why don't we remember our past lives in detail? ]

Fifth:		If we posit such a MIND-BEING, then it (or they) would have to be
coexistent with SPIRIT and MATTER.  Thus an eternal triangle or triad is
necessary for "manifestation" or some limits that radiate from the
ABSOLUTE.

Sixth:		The most advanced of such mind-beings would have to be enormously
familiar with the evolutionary processes and therefore be entrusted with
some of its procedures, as over-seers or administrators (under the LAW of
KARMA) -- and part of those duties would consist of the education of infant
and adolescent humanity, until a stage is reached when mankind can begin
assuming the responsibility of educating itself by its own determination
and efforts, each for itself, and incidentally for the benefit of others
around it.

3.	The "Word"  Verbum  Logos, etc... would this not be the idea of
organization which presupposes an earlier one, this, being the reproduction
of the old one at point when it went to "rest ?"

The "word" (to me) signifies mind, plan, design, purpose;  material in
which it can be brought to shape;  reason for its being so deployed;  and
beings of greater or lesser sensitivity who can participate in such a
complex program.  Such beings at whatever level would have to embody
aspects more or less developed of all three aspects of the evolutionary
mix:  Spirit,  Matter, and Mind.

Hence every broad stage of evolution (from atom to Galaxy) and (from
mineral to man, or super-man) would be a stage in the developing of an
intelligence which encompasses the whole of the evolutionary purpose, and
is able also to envisage, however dimly, or individually, and either with
greater reality or greater fancy, such a concept as the ABSOLUTE.

Such Intelligence, Consciousness or Spirit-Soul would be eternal, deathless
and immortal, for this concept to be realizable.  [  Question:  is this so
?  do we have enough evidence, and logic, to agree that mankind is in such
a position potentially if not actually ? ]

While not completely adopting your terminology, could you agree with some
of my concepts ?

Could we say perhaps:

The Absolute is the "Causeless Cause, the Root and sustainer of All.

Spirit represents consciousness or intelligence arising from and within the
absolute.

Mind is the intelligence of all beings in action--the creative or
constructive power.

Matter is substance, from the most ethereal to the most concrete:  products
of the interaction and interrelation of the various classes of beings
involved.

Will is the force of any and all degrees of intelligence;  it is inherent
in consciousness as "the power to act."  determination (choice) to act
makes it operative.

There exists an ineffaceable Record in Nature, a kind of "Ether" which
records all events, thoughts, actions, feelings.  It is a form of substance
which is created by the action of intelligence.

Life is the power to perceive, and give expression to any degree of
intelligence upon any level or plane of substance.

Why should it be so difficult to understand the Absolute?  IT is the
opposite of "Relative."  IT includes all things and all beings, and being
the substratum of all, past, present or future.  It cannot be inquired into
by any being who exists in IT, and not from IT.  It denotes that IT has no
qualities or attributes of any kind, how can we who are limited understand
IT ?

We are familiar with the term LIFE, and understand that it is expressed in
all forms visible or invisible to us.  It is everywhere and penetrates all
things.  However as beings we cannot inquire into that power of infinite
expression which each one of us is.  We can only express IT according to
the range and level of our particular  nature and development.  No being
can express Life without being in essence LIFE ITSELF.  So with the
ABSOLUTE.

We can say of the Absolute:  IT IS.  We can only say of ourselves:  "I am."
How can we inquire into that which does not depend on any expression great
or small, but upon solely the fact of  Its Universal Presence ?  Of
ourselves, we can only say:  I am both being and non-being -- our power to
perceive is "non-being," our experiences understood and remembered are our
"being."

The absolute is a name for the One Reality, the Infinite, Unchanging basis
for All.  The rest is "maya" illusion - the passing scene - with ever
changing modes of expression and degrees of intelligence and forms.  They
ever approach the "Light," but they never touch the "Flame."

I am afraid that some of this sounds very mystical, but don't know how else
to express it.

			Hope that this is of some help also,		Dallas


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

----------
> From: "Bjorn Roxendal" <roxendal@usa.net>
> Subject: Re: The Absolute
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 12:50 PM
>
> Glen, Dallas, Govert and all who have contributed to this thread. Thanks
for your contributions. I
> find it all very fascinating. In answer to your input I'd like to submit
the following outline of a
> "mini cosmology":
>
>
> It seems that life consist of two (integrated) compartments:
>
> 1. The uncreated
> 2. The created
>
> The intellect may challenge the concept of "uncreated existence". Doesn't
everything that exists have
> a cause? At least this is our experience as we have been conditioned to
experience through the filters
> of time and space. But on the other hand we have to admit that there has
to be an original causeless
> cause, otherwise nothing would exist. The original Creator cannot be
created, because there wouldn't
> be anything/anybody to create it/him/her. The following concerns
primarily the uncreated realm of
> existence, since I believe that an understanding, even though preliminary
and incomplete, of that
> which is before creation, will help us understand changing and evolving
life also.
>
> It follows logically that "something" within the realm of the uncreated
is creating whatever is
> part of creation. What we call "the Absolute" is obviously a part of the
uncreated, even its
> foundation. We "understand" that the Absolute is Existence itself,
without differentiation or
> qualities. There is no movement or action of any kind in the Absolute.
Therefor It can NOT CREATE
> anything. It does not do ANYTHING. It just IS. The Absolute is nothing
but unlimited potential. It is
> NOT the Creator. So, there must be an UNCREATED
> something/somebody, that/who is the creating agent. This is what we often
call the "Word".
>
> What can we say about the Word? First, it must somehow be connected to
the Absolute (otherwise it
> would not exist at all). The objection arises: How can something be
connected to a no-thing that is
> void of all  qualities? I don't think we can find an intellectually
satisfying answer, but it may help
> to think of the Absolute as possessing one quality after all - BEINGNESS
itself. In some mystical way
> the Word is merged with the Absolute - it *IS* the Absolute in its
*active* aspect. The Absolute has
> two aspects, in
> other words. 1) The Passive Absolute and 2) The Active Absolute. The
Active Absolute is not yet
> manifestation - it is still uncreated "nothingness" - but it not only IS,
it also DOES. It doesn't do
> anything in particular, of course, it just - vibrates. This vibration is
not a movement as we think of
> movement - to our minds movement has direction, beginning, end. The
"movement" of the Word is simply
> the ability to create. If the Absolute existed only in its "passive"
aspect nothing would ever be
> created. (When we talk about the Passive and the Active aspect of the
Absolute it is really an
> abstraction, a way to make the unthinkable processable by our minds. In
reality the passive and active
> aspects are one and inseparable.)
>
> But, there is still something missing. The Absolute, even its active
aspect, would not necessarily
> create anything, although the creative ability is there. There must be
something more. If we think
> about the fact that the Word is a kind of original movement/vibration, we
are led to the conclusion
> that the Absolute within itself must contain a polarity. Not duality, but
polarity. Nothing can
> vibrate without there being a difference, a potential, if you will,
between whose extremes the
> vibration can take place.
>
>
> These "phenomena" takes place within the Absolute itself, they are all
uncreated. They are the
> necessary
> prerequisites for creation.
>
> Let us continue - a polarity is only a polarity if we have *poles* and a
pole is/has *identity*. A
> pole is a defined point of origin of something. In this case the poles
originate the "movement" of the
> Word. Let us, for simplicities sake, call the poles + and - . The + and
the - signify a *difference*.
> If there is a difference there are *qualities*, since the things that
differ differ by virtue of their
> different qualities. The "plus" possesses one or more distinct qualities,
the "minus', likewise. If we
> try to
> *name* these most basic existential qualities, what would we call them? I
am sure there are many names
> we could use; all incomplete, but all also, perhaps, partially true. Some
word pairs, like
> Father/Mother or Creator/Destroyer, emphasize the Personal aspect of the
poles, while others, like
> Power/Love, more emphasize qualities in an impersonal sense.
>
> I suggest the words "Givingness" and "Receptivity" as descriptions of the
primordial, uncreated
> qualities, inherent in all life, created and uncreated. "Giving" and
"receiving" depend on each other
> and describe the most basic life processes, inherent in the Word itself.
The giving "Pole", (+), is
> the "Giver" and the receiving Pole, (-), is the "Receiver". One cannot
exist without the other. We can
> look at them as *Persons* (Giver/Receiver) or *qualities*
(Givingness/Receptivity). They are/have
> personality (personhood) AND quality. The passive, receptive pole is the
"Knower", the active pole
> that which becomes the known.
>
> What we need to remember is that all of the above is part of the
uncreated. There is no time, space or
> manifestation in this realm. So far we are talking about that which IS,
not what was or will be. One
> error that we are prone to is to think about time as something that was
created a very very long time
> ago. Not so, time is created now, in the eternal now. Time did NOT start
happening. It is created "as
> we speak". ("Before Abraham was, I AM").
>
> So, we have Existence (the Passive Absolute), Creative capacity (The
Word) and Personality (+/-). We
> are now ready to Create! Well, *almost*. In order for the Word to be
employed in creative activity,
> there has to be a modulating influence. The Word itself is Creative
potential, not creative process.
> Where do we find the modulator? The Word is potential infinite creativity
but it has to be put to use.
> How does that happen? And by what agency? I think, in essence, that it
just "happens". The Giver and
> the Receiver/Perceiver have a relationship through their ongoing
giving/receiving. In this
> relationship awareness arises. It is Self awareness. And with the
awareness that "I AM", comes the
> awareness that "I AM infinite creative capacity". I think that is how
creation begins - by the agency
> of awareness. What then follows is the modulating of the ebb and flow of
the movement of the Word. The
> Word does not "change", it remains what it is. At the same time
modulation/creation takes place. As
> soon as modulation starts, abstract time and space (not physical) has
been created. From there on it
> is a matter of variation and densification in infinite degrees. A
sustained pattern of vibration is a
> form, and there is no end to the possibilities. The Word is part of both
the absolute/uncreated and
> the relative/creation. The Word is what is *Real* about creation, all
"appearances" are "maya".
> Illusion comes from the fact that it is possible to have a limited view
point. Instead of perceiving
> from the point of view of the Receiver/Perceiver it is possible to locate
a "Pseudo perceiver"
> somewhere on a limited aspect of creation. From such a veiwpoint
everything becomes relative and Truth
> is to be found nowhere.
>
> And that's all I have to say about that (for now).
>
>
> Bjorn
>
>