Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00039)

Bjorn Roxendal wrote:
>
> 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
>
>