Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00032)

Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>
> 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."

Yes

>
> 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?


The precursor to limitation is not yet manifestation or limitation. It is the active aspect of the
Absolute and inseparable from it. It has no dimensions. This is what I called the Word.

Only when the Word (primordial vibration) is being "modulated" between its two poles does creation
take place, first of the abstract dimensions of time and space, then of increasing complexity of
manifestation of form.


  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.


Any act of creation causes an "imprint" on the receiving end, this imprint becomes a seed for a new
creative act and so forth. THis is how I understand the principle of karma. In case of bad karma the
imprint "opposes" the whole, the source, and is incompatible with it, good karma means it assists the
whole to manifest more of itself.


> 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.

Yes

> 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.

yes

> 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.


I like to see individualization as facetts of a crystal, where the crystal is the totality of the Word
in its unlimited non-manifestation. Each surface of a facett refracts the light in a different way and
emanates a unique blend of frequencies. The medium surrounding the crystal is manifestation/creation.
Each facett interacts with the surrounding medium in its own individual way, although the same crystal
is its inner nature. There is no limit to the number of facetts and the size can vary from incredibly
small to incredibly big. Why this individualization takes place? Simply because that is THE way to
make the most of the unlimited creative potential inherent in the source.


>
> Third:          If to SPIRIT we oppose the polarity of MATTER we have contrast.

What is the essential difference between "original spirit" and "original matter"?


> 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.


I don't know if this is "right" or "wrong". I just tried to formulate a "stripped down" version of the
anatomy of life, introducing a minimum of concepts. Words such as "spirit", "mind", "matter" seem
rather diffuse to me (but they can probably be defined).


> Would it not be logical to think that such a MIND-BEING would partake more
> of the nature of SPIRIT than of matter?

This spirit-matter thing is unclear to me.

 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.


I think reincarnation is natures way to deal with calcification. If our forms were more flexible and
durable reincarnation would not be such a major thing. Reincarnation becomes less of an issue as we
progress.



> Question:  Why should there be 'forgetfulness' between adjacent lives ?
> Why don't we remember our past lives in detail? ]

Simply to avoid information overload that would interfer with day-to-day business.


> 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.

yes


> 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 is many things, truly the Mystery of Life. What you bring up here is whether the faculty of
memory exists at the level of the Word. Very good question. I am guessing probably "yes".


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

Defintely

> Could we say perhaps:
>
> The Absolute is the "Causeless Cause, the Root and sustainer of All.

yes

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

Yes, Although what people mean when they talk about "spirit" often is unclear to me.

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

What you say here is that the essence of "Mind" is the same as "the Word".


> Matter is substance, from the most ethereal to the most concrete:

What about "spiritual substance"? If there is sprirtual creation there must be spiritual "matter",
right?


> 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.


It seems like you are saying that "intelligence has will". I see will as an equal, preexising quality.
And you say (I think) that "I Am, therefor I Will to act" . I would say that the awareness that "I am"
arises from the interplay of Will and Receptivity.


> 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 ?

Yes, absolutely :)

> 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."


Yes, although I find the term "non-being" somewhat confusing. Sounds like it does not exist. That is
why I was using "uncreated" and "created". We are both uncreated and created being. We can't really be
"non-being", since that would not exist.


> 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."


The question here is: "Is all creation maya?" It depends on ones perspective. If one perceives the
multide of forms as possessing separate reality one is caught in maya, creation "is" maya.  If one
sees the absoluteness of reality through the form there is no maya.


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


Was fairly understandable.

Bjorn