Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00147)

>
 kymsmith@micron.net wrote:

>Tony wrote:
>
>>Don't you feel it could be through suffering that we come to spiritual
>>philosophy?
>
>No, actually I don't.
>
>First, my simplest reason:  Animals.  I have a dog who has never suffered -
>now she may think she has suffered because I delayed four minutes one time
>giving her a treat - but in the context of suffering we are talking about
>here, she has never known anguish.  Yet, she is the most gentle and loving
>being I know.  Gentle with all creatures, young and old.  She responds to my
>joy with her own joy and she responds to my sadness with her own sadness.
>Why should a creature such as she have to incarnate into humandom?  Many
>will respond immediately with the answer: Consciousness.  I believe she has
>consciousness, but for sake of argument here I will accept she does not -
>(again, though, I do believe she does have it).


Surely your dog has consciousness, but then so do trees, metals, rust,
rocks, a blade of grass, a buddha, and everything else on and in the planet,
and possibly both of us.  It will be surprising if others disagree.  It is
said that dogs are like their owners, so it is good to meet you in that
particular arena.

>Why should a creature such as she have to incarnate into humandom?
The simple answer is evolution.  It would be terrible to deny her that.  It
would be like denying you becoming a spiritual being (even though that is
what you are). It just seems that your relationship with her is helping her
in accomplishing that, and it is a very positive thing.  It would be
difficult to support that with endless pages of discussion (quiet reflection
though would be another thing), but that comes over as being the case.

>
>Which brings me to my next reason why I wonder about the value of suffering:

When once the possibilities of a more spiritual life can be seen, it seems
living in this world is suffering, however happy a life a person may be
leading.

>What difference does consciousness make?  Theosophy says "All are One."
>That our evolution has to do with recognizing our relationship to the
>Divine.  Each of us look forward to the time when it is said "It is
>finished" and we then turn to help others who are still in progress.  Ok,
>fine.  But, again, what is the point?

As we evolve we begin to see the point, and as we change the point appears
to change, and yet it stays the same.  Like the sun in relation to the
planet. So today the point seems to be: the point of evolution is to realise
the divine plan.  To fully realise our potential.  To fully realise the
potential of the planet, and thus the solar system, and so on.

>Say, for example's sake, that "Adam and Eve" had never eaten of the "Tree of
>Knowledge."  What would have been the horror if it had not happened?

The thing is Kym, they did eat.  They may have got the timing wrong, but
they ate, and it is difficult if not impossible to see how it could be
otherwise.

We
>would be in the "Garden" - happy and content.  "Adam and Eve" at that time
>had never "suffered," yet, they seemed to live well enough in harmony.  Ok,
>again, I know that people will balk and say - "but they were no better than
>automatons."  This may or may not be true.  But would "Adam and Eve" ever
>really have wished for or missed the 'consciousness' we now seek?  There
>would be no pain - perhaps there would be no happiness, either.  But is
>happiness - or consciousness itself - so worthy of the price one must "pay"
>to know it?  For those who say "Yes" - I ask, what tells you that?  What
>makes you believe that?  Why the journey to return from whence we came - why
>not just have remained there?

Again, it has to be the rather unhelpful answer of the Law of Evolution.  It
doesn't seem to be about what price one has to pay.  At this stage of our
evolution we are in duality, and thus Adam & Eve, pleasure and pain,
happiness and unhapiness.  Are they *really* so different when seen from the
wider viewpoint.  Of course they are down here.  But aren't they the 2 poles
of the same energy (or whatever it should be called)?  The more balanced we
become, and karma helps us in this, the more just things are.

In a tape of a Voice, speaking from outer space, it came through a local
radio station here in London early 1970's, during a live broadcast on Flying
Saucers, To the question: "So how do you intend to help us?"
The Voice replies:

"The only way you can be helped is not by doing for you that which you must
do for yourself.  But possibly by guiding the way,  but indirectly not
directly.  It is not possible to say to man: You must do this - because it
is in the nature of man not to do this but to do something different because
there is in the nature of man perhaps a perversity which we observe.  But
never mind, it is possible perhaps if man uses only one thing, that is
intelligence.  The greatest danger in man is pity.  Man has a strong feeling
of pity for his fellow men, for suffering.  It is good but it is not the
highest good.  In the Universe the highest good is balance, is Justice, not
pity.  A very interesting thing, but justice is the most important element
in the universe.  And if man will find justice, there is hope for man."

>
>And, for those who say that we would have never even been "Adam and Eve" -
>simply "sparks" - again, I wonder, so what?  If one (spark or monad) does
>not know anything one will not know that they do not know anything.
>
>What does it mean to say "It is finished?"

It doesn't mean anything.  It is never finished.

What is this "glory" we are
>supposed to experience after the journey?

 I freely admit, from a human
>point of view, this "glory" is hard for the mind to grasp.  Yet, the "glory"
>itself sounds awfully repetitious - for we are to turn around and help
>others so they can turn around and help others so they can turn around and
>help others.
>
>I am NOT saying that we should just live self-centeredly and all that
>garbage for those concepts are concepts that arise after human incarnation -
>what I am asking is, "In the Beginning" we came from the "One" where I
>assume no violence, pain, anguish, and all that other jazz existed and we
>were already united in harmony - why the break-up?  What is the value in
>recognizing we are living in harmony?

It is tempting to answer by saying, "the "glory" itself sounds awfully
repetitious."  It kind of gives a clue.  Going to bed at night, and getting
up in the morning, could seem to be awfully repetitious, but it isn't. It is
a re-awakening.
The planet has a huge roll to play in the development of the solar system,
and when things start moving, when we get our act together and stop acting
so selfishly, then the solar system within us and without will be
considerably enhanced. There is a definite feeling that at the present time
we are holding things back.
>
>Until I can be assured that recognizing my relationship with the "Divine"
>and the "glory" which is supposed to accompany that is really worth this
>journey and the pain it entails, I find myself forced to rebel against the
>"need for suffering" - for me and others.
>
It doesn't come over as being like this.  "AR" in a recent mail wrote about
compassion and wisdom.  The two would seem to be linked, inseparably (or
otherwise).  Compassion means to suffer.
Would you allow, that the Buddha, in his *infinite* wisdom and compassion,
rather than going into Nirvana (or whatever name we are going to give it),
stayed for the benefit of humanity?

"Behold, the mellow light that floods the Eastern sky."

Tony