Re: : Theosophy in the mist
Apr 24, 1998 12:19 PM
by Mark Kusek
Jerry Schueler wrote:
> >I guess the tricky question is whether or not you hold the view that the
> >Cosmic Monas Monadum is
> >itself evolving from Mahamanvantaric cycle to cycle
> In a sense, I would agree with this. But in another sense, your "monad
> of monads" is nothing more or less than any other monad. If you assume
> that a "monad" is indivisible, spaceless, and timeless, than what is
> the difference between any one monad and any other monad? None
> at all as each is identical and takes up the same space at the same time
> thus all are un-differentiable or indistinguishable (i.e., ONE=ALL).
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your discourse.
My awareness is: Manifestation = limitation = evolution.
My experience of Monadic life is, as I've said, from a dualistic
"flip-flop point of view. I see as simultaneously One and (one of) Many.
This is, I believe, part and parcel of experience in manifestation. In
unitive expression: I completely agree and can only mystically affirm "I
AM THAT I AM." This is form, but formless form (having all form as
form.) In individualized expression: I function subordinately and
independantly as I AM, yet fully aware that "you and I (and others - in
the Unity of ALL)" are "not two." I personify. I wake. I lovingly
embrace mayavic form. I hold a mailing address, eat food, carry a wallet
and even subscribe to magazines! I make my appearance as the "coat man."
The "coat-man" is sophisticated.
but the real self is a baby.
I've just started being real ... I can't help it.
Give me my Mother's nipple!
Acknowledging the apparent distinction between the Cosmic ONE and all
that subsequently issues forth from and within IT [as subordinate
multiple individualities], I hold true that all of these subsequent
individual monadic posits are also mayavic and consentual identic
limits, from a certain point of view. One and Many. Duality
In individualized multiplicity, there appears a subtle, or not so
subtle, distinctive difference between one and another, functionally as
well as in the degree of attainment. I bend the knee, and I stand
accordingly. Yet behind it all: the void, the pleroma. Mystery. No
tongue can touch it ... no glyph can expess it ...
> >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 don't understand your question here. "Purpose" and "perfect" are
> relative terms that only have meaning in our mayavic 7 plane solar
> universe. From my view within our solar system, those things called
> monads are perfect. I doubt that this view holds from their viewpoint.
Exactly (from their viewpoint). The fact that The MONAD is manifest (as
One or as Many) is evidence of Maya. Any "perfection" is relative to the
unmanifest potential of the Boundless, at least from our point of view.
> >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.
> I understand what you are saying here, but remember that manifest
> and unmanifest are two sides of a duality, much like Bound and
> Boundless are. Truth or reality, if it is anything at all, transcends
> both sides of all dualities.
Agreed. It is the limitation of concrete thought, speech and language,
that prevents us from satisfactorily expressing the truth.
Taoist artists of long ago, paused silently;
long enough to realize the meaning of the emptiness of paper or silk,
before they would ever move to pick up the brush. With that preparation,
... how could the Tao not naturally manifest?
> >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?
> Yes and yes.
Agreed. Manifestation = existence in time and space (even cosmic
proportions of time and space.)
> >Is its Swabhava absolutely realized?
> Here Theosophy differs from Buddhism. A good Theosophical
> answer is yes, but a Buddhist would likely answer no because
> Buddhists see Swabhava as a mayavic characteristic and
> thus holds only for relative truth.
Count me personally as a Buddhist then, for my experience is that I AM
THAT I AM is indeed evolving, even though it may be the apogee of
perfection for this particular Cosmic System. It still is a mayavic
entity, subject to karma and dharma. No manifest being is Absolute.
> >Is each new manifestation from
> >Mahapralaya exactly the same as it was all the other times before?
> No. No two grains of sand are exactly the same.
Agreed. Here, I start drawing spirals!
> >it acknowledge the Unknown? How does it view it's relationship to the
> >Boundless from whence it issued? Thoughts?
> Yes. As an I-Not-I monadic entity. The first or primordial duality of all
> is subject (I) and object (Not-I). The rest comes from attempts of the I to
> identity the first duality poles (i.e., itself and its world).
"In the "beginning", there is yet no world. There is only the silence
between heart beats.
I beat, and the universe is formed. I acquiesce, and the universe
disappears. While in existence: ten thousand things. Male and female:
ten thousand things. All dancing before my solitary eye."
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
Forgive the poet,
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application