Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00447)

Nov 25th

Some Notes interjected below

Dal

> From: Jerry Schueler
> Sent:	Wednesday, November 25, 1998 5:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: More on Karma

>It occurs to me that the following series of questions are
>pertinent:
>
>
>Why does the Ego of each of us come into existence ?
>

The ego comes into existence at each birth, and the Ego at
the birth of each manvantara. It is a self-expression of the
divine Monad (which exists as an axiomatic assumption).


I DON'T THINK THIS ANSWERS THE "WHY" - BUT THAT MAY BE TOO CLOSE
TO ASKING "WHAT IS THE 'FIRST CAUSE' ?"  MONAD IS AGREEABLY A
STARTING POINT.  BUT IF THE MONAD IS ALL-WISE, THEN WHY THIS AREA
(EARTH) OF CONFUSION, IGNORANCE AND ILLUSION ?  This stirring up
of "many natures marvelously mixed" is a most strange phenomenon.



>Why is it endowed with the power of the Mind ?
>

Because as-above-so-below. There is only one Principle
and everything expresses it.


BUT, WHO OR WHY WAS THIS ESTABLISHED - I AGREE THERE IS ONE
PRINCIPLE, BUT THEN WHY THE MANY SUB-DIVISIONS UNLESS IT IS THE
PURPOSE TO FORMULATE WITHIN THIS ONE PRINCIPLE A HOST OF
INDEPENDENT BUT SIMILARLY ORIENTED BEINGS - EVENTUALLY

I HAVE OFTEN WONDERED ABOUT THIS DIVERSITY AND CAME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT ONENESS IN ITSELF IS WITHOUT VALUE.  IT NEEDS
'STIRRING UP.'  I HAVE FOUND IN THE SD Vol II the phrase "the
morbid inactivity of pure spirit."  (SD II 103 and see also II
421 in this connection)  I wonder if this indicates a rule, law,
necessity for this process ?




>Why does Nature ( the Universe, etc.) exist at all ?
>

It only has relative existence. We created it, and we
maintain it, and one day we will end it.


IF 'WE' CREATED IT, THEN WE ARE QUITE POWERFUL IN SOME ASPECT OF
OUR INDIVIDUAL NATURE - I guess it is innate to the MONAD ?





>Why do we inquire into these things ?
>

Because the human mind (unlike animals) has an
inherent need for mental stability and this stability
requires a world view of some kind that will "explain"
our experiences. Animals accept. We tend to question.

DALLAS:
I would say that in this we agree, AND PERHAPS WHAT I HAVE
INTERJECTED ABOVE MAY HAVE RELEVANCE ?



>Of what value is the concept of Karma or the equipoise of all
>Nature ?
>

It explains causation. However, unlike God, I do not believe
that Karma is omniscient, omnipresent, nor omnipotent.


AGREED - I WOULD NOT PUT 'KARMA' AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR 'GOD'.  BUT
I DO THINK THAT THE ABILITY OF UNIVERSAL PERCEPTION - AN
ATTRIBUTE OF THE ONE MONAD -
ALLOWS ALSO FOR MANY POINTS OF VIEW - LIKE THE EYES OF THE BEE OR
THE FLY PERMIT INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS AN AGGREGATE VIEW OF THE
SCENE.  THE OTHER ATTRIBUTES SEEM COMPLEMENTARY AND VALUABLE TO
ME AS CONCEPTS.




>Writing and thinking as a "Buddhist" you may object to these
>ideas or statements

No, Dallas. I like HPB and agree with her completely. But
you have to be careful when you read her. There are at least
two kinds of praylaya for our world: (1) the end of the lower
four planes and their re-manifestation based on the shistas
that remain on the third plane downward (this is the main
one that she talks about), and (2) the end of the seven-plane
solar system altogether. There is a direct correspondence
between the lower four planes (samsara) and the upper three
(nirvana) with the lower ego and the higher Ego.


AGAIN I AGREE - HOW WE READ INTO HER OUR IDEAS IS A DANGER.  THAT
IS WHY I VALUE THIS EXCHANGE.  -- DAL


Jerry S.