Re:The "Eternal Present: and KARMA
Apr 20, 1998 05:00 AM
by Mark Kusek
Jerry Schueler wrote:
> I am convinvced that evolution is a cycle or circle, not a spiral.
> This means that we wind up pretty much where we started off,
> as timeless and spaceless monads. So what's the point?
> I think that life needs no "reason" other than self-manifestation
> (Meister Eckhart said the same thing years ago). The concept
> of "purpose" implies time, and timeless things don't need a
> purpose, because they are already perfect.
Oh, OK. I get you. The Ouroborous.
The concept of "purpose" implies time. So does the concept of
Maybe, for "purposes" of discussion (sorry, couldn't resist) we could
agree that while the point of view of the monad on its own plane is
timeless and spaceless and "perfect", its ray sojourns in (mayavic) time
This seems to imply cycles of descent and ascent as well as the
development of capabilities and relationships with the matter of those
planes both as vehicles and environs, i.e., self-imposed limitations and
Maybe it's in that sense (of activity in mayavic time and space) that
the doctrine of cycles can be seen as "spiralling."
I guess the tricky question is whether or not you hold the view that the
Cosmic Monas Monadum (monad of monads, or manifested Cosmic Logos) is
itself evolving from Mahamanvantaric cycle to cycle?
In stating "timeless things don't need a purpose, because they are
already perfect," you seem to be saying "no." Or do I read you
I hold the view that the only absolute perfection is the Boundless
Unmanifest. Any Logoic manifestation (i.e., Cosmic Monas Monadum) is
still a limited being, albeit cosmic in proportion. Therefore, it is
still subject to evolution, even though it is the apogee for all that
subsequently issues forth into and occurs within its system.
Does the fact that it manifests and persists for the duration of the
Mahamanvantara mean that it exists in time, or not? Does it have karma?
Is its Swabhava absolutely realized? Is each new manifestation from
Mahapralaya exactly the same as it was all the other times before? Does
it acknowledge the Unknown? How does it view it's relationship to the
Boundless from whence it issued? Thoughts?
> As to the other point; chaos and order (or cosmos) are
> two sides of the same thing--a duality, and so you can't
> have one without the other.
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application