Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00535)

> alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> This implies that *you* know how to look, otherwise to use your words it is:
> "A bias of opinion and unsupportable as absolute."
> As is the statement "Why the conditional need for drama?"  It is you that
> seem to be making of it a drama - who else said or thought anything about drama?

Anything can be looked at as a "code that will open the understanding to
"deeper" levels." I have that experience looking. You don't have to
limit the potential just to a view of the SD. Of course, that is just my
opinion. And being so, it's relative, not absolute.

Regarding drama, you're right, I'm saying it. If you keep wisdom
projected in the idea of the book, you don't find it looking through
your own eyes.

> > I disagree. Don't confuse a form of language with the meaningful content
> > it carries.
>
> Perhaps that is precicesly what you are doing with YOUR interpretation of
> the above. Very easily done.

I am not dismissing Sanskrit nor am I disregarding your opinion. I
acknowledge the value of both. I also know that helping humanity is not
limited to using Sanskrit. I simply disagree that English makes
Theosophy harder. It does not for me, and you're right, that is my
interpretation.

> >It is possible to gutterally grunt the truth like a savage
> >or express the whole matter with translingual silence.
>
> Again, isn't this: "A bias of opinion and unsupportable as absolute."

Of course.

> Are you so sure it is possible to gutterally grunt the truth like a savage?  Or
> express the whole matter with translingual silence.

Yes.

> The suggestion is, use the Sanskrit words.

Agreed.

> You said something, in question format, very interesting about entities and
> "creation" some time back.  And you related it to where "creation" begins.
> An actor sees his audience as an entity.  The play that is being acted is an
> entity.  Is it there, the entity,  waiting for them to act out the next
> performance?

Sure. As a thought/feeling form.

> A worshiped god becomes a living entity, and then earthly
> statues, etc. are built in its praise.
> When that god (or picture, or poem)
> is no longer worshiped or "worshiped" it starts falling apart in the astral,
> and then the earthly statues start falling apart. Legs, arms, ears, etc.,
> start dropping off.  Do you think beautiful old Churches, for example,
> should be preserved in the name of art, or left to fall down?

I appreciate them. I think they should be preserved, but also know that
they will eventually fall apart, just like everything else will.

> It is interestring to try and relate this to the
> beginning" of "creation", to a new manvantara, dawn, Brahma, breath, or
> whatever.

It is said in the SD that when the dawn happens, primordial ideation
becomes active. The outpicturing of this "archetypal ideational content"
determines the entire manifest form(s) of the new system, including
living beings.

I guess the question is: Is an energized thought/feeling form created in
the lower worlds a living entity in the same way that outpictured
primordial ideation is?

Thanks,
Mark
--------
WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space
http://www.withoutwalls.com
E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com