Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00706)

> Is there a difference between man's perception of law and law in
> itself ?
>
I don't think that any difference would be significant.


> Does an "abstract," or "ideal" Nature underlie all we perceive,
> ourselves, every atom ?  How can this be detected or determined?
>
Good and evil are within us, not outside in nature. Nature
is empty of suchness (I agree with Buddhism here), and thus
requires a proper viewpoint rather than any purification.


> Who or what in us either feels or notices pain or joy ?
>
The human ego or personality together with the physical
body.

> Is the passage of time and events (of all kinds) a matter of
> sentiment (not sensation), or a matter of observation (besides
> either enjoying or suffering them) ?
>

I suspect that it is both.

> What is the difference between "thinking about" and "knowing ?"
>

A wide gap. Knowing comes only from direct experience. First
we know, and then we think about, or vice verse. They are
altogether different things.

> I ask these questions in all sincerity, since they are the tools
> that I use to build up my understanding of this environment, and
> of 'myself.'
>

OK. There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

> Why should events in and around me be either partially, or
> wholly,
> or not at all, subject to chance (or law) :  is it possible to
> have an unstable mixture of both?  And if so, who or what
> perceives it ?

We are subject to both law (order) and chance (chaos) because
these two polar opposites lie at the foundation of our
universe. I am certain that the divine Monad does not
perceive any of this but its ray does.
>


> Apart from observed indeterminacy, is there not a general
> tendency to harmony and inter-action whereby units cooperate --
> or is this by chance ?

We live in a world of duality where both harmony and discord
exist, both order and chance. Chance came into play when we
agreed to join the human life-wave.

> Indeterminacy for the individual, and the
> "Law of Mass Action" seems to operate for large groups.  Yet, the
> individual is always an unknown.
>
Even groups have a degree of indeterminacy although they do
conform to statistical probability. Individuals do not conform
to statistical probability and so are indeterminante.


>
Is this why we are always bound to our fellows, though
> intellectually, ethically, psychically we may advance at a pace
> chosen by our inner selves ?
>
I think that we are always bound to our fellows because they
are us and we are them. The more spiritual we go, the less
difference there seems to be between any two things.

> How far can one stretch probability?  and if this is observed,
> would not th "Observer" have to have some reference points that
> are stable?
>
Probability charactersizes large groups but not individuals.
Our human life-wave is predictable while we as individuals
are not. I am not sure what you mean by "stable" as there
is no such thing in our world except maybe consciousness
itself. All things are relative.

> If everything "moves" then stability is not physical but
> metaphysical -- as an ideal ?
>
According to Buddhism there are two truths: relative truth
of everyday life (duality) and absolute truth (nonduality).
I certainly agree that stability is not physical nor is
anything physical very stable.

> If so, then are ideals stable or mutable ?  and again, if
>
 mutable, who determines that and how ?
>
>
Well, ideas or symbols in the Jungian sense probably
exist as such for at least one manvantara, so they are
certainly relatively stable. I think we, collective
humanity, make all of these determinations. I would
even agree that it is karmic.


Jerry S.