Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00195)

To be or not to be
To exist of not to exist
Existence does not exist.
Existence is existence.
To exist is to be exhiled.
We seem to exist yet. . .
We do not, not really
We are existence.
We only think
And feel
And behave 
As if
We existed, separate from others.
Such is the effect of
Illusion
Glamour
Bad Habits
We "see through a glass darkly".
We are the one, not one of the many.
Such is only appearances,
Appearances only.

We are beyond all such appearances.
We see the divine absolutely divine orderly Chaos
Imperfectly.
It is our perception that fails us.
We are inbetween seeing the divine order of perfect randomness
And the perfect order of the Absolutely Nothing(to us),
Between the Infinite Circle 
And the Non-dimensional point,
Mere Representations
Of
Space
and 
Motion
of
Nothing
at 
All.






-----Original Message-----
From: dalval2nwc.net <dalval@nwc.net>
To: Theosophy Study List <theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 11:20 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Dallas' e-mail


>June 22 2000
>
>Dear Kym:
>
>Your message makes one think.  Let me see if this proves to be of
>help:
>
>
>WHY DO WE EXIST?  WHY ARE THINGS AS THEY ARE?
>
>
>These are difficult to answer if we try to do so from the point
>of view of our present limited experience.
>
>We need to ask ourselves why we know we are both limited (by
>birth, circumstances, education, this life's memories, etc... and
>the POTENTIAL from which these limits can be viewed AS LIMITS.
>
>If there is that in us which perceives the DIFFERENCE, then that
>point of perception is not LIMITED.
>
>Using this as a basis then we have a series of perceptive levels,
>from UNITY to extreme diversity.  Yet even in DIVERSITY, taking
>even a single ultimate, there will always be (as in the MONAD)
>the contrast of SPIRIT (perfection, wholeness, unity, wisdom,
>law, universality, un-selfishness, stability, etc... all
>universals)  vs.  MATTER (isolation, form, limitations,
>selfishness, ignorance, etc...)   But DUALITY is insufficient.
>The ability to perceive DIFFERENCE implies a THIRD FACTOR. It is
>MIND.  The Power to perceive the contrasts that the interaction
>of SPIRIT/MATTER continuously demonstrate.
>
>This TRINITY in manifestation demonstrates the CAUSE -- it is
>wisdomism, to coin a word.
>
>Ancient sages said:  "Desire first arose in IT that was the
>primal germ of mind.  And which Sages, searching with their
>intellect, have discovered in their HEART to be the bond which
>connects ENTITY with non-entity," or Manas with pure
>Atma-Buddhi."   [ SD II 276,  Theos. Glossary,  p. 171 ]
>
>This is an answer in terms of meta-physics, and it may prove
>difficult to satisfy the purely brain-mind with it.  But it is
>the only answer that satisfied me so far.  One has to acquire a
>sense of permanence.  The survival of the REAL MAN -- the THINKER
>as a concept is all-essential.  If we deny that, then in deed, we
>become materialists and in a material universe there is no answer
>as to CAUSE.  All causes begin in the non-material.
>
>Perhaps this is why THEOSOPHY is so difficult fro some to grasp.
>It takes out of the material -- which explains NOTHING into the
>CAUSAL area -- which gives balance to the whole structure of our
>being.
>
>It is something that needs deep thought (meditation) about.
>
>Why is a GOD invoked?  Are we important to IT, or is IT important
>to us as a kind of marvelous or miraculous solution?  Or can we
>think ourselves out of the dilemma?
>
>Why do we need to be afraid of anything?  If we are one with, or
>a part of -- the UNIVERSE, then we are automatically a part of
>GOD-UNIVERSE.  It is one with us also.  Protection and
>understanding are natural between parent and child.  No?  Should
>any parent desire its child to remain ignorant?
>
>Best wishes.
>
>
>D. T. B.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: kymsmithSent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 4:56 PM
>To: Theosophy Study List
>Subject: Re: Dallas' e-mail
>
>Dallas offered in another e-mail:
>
>****************
>
>This idea of MAHAT (the great) AKASHA or Brahma's aura of
>transformation with the Hindus, of ALAYA, "the DIVINE SOUL of
>thought and COMPASSION" of the trans-Himalayan  mystics;  of
>Plato's "PERPETUALLY REASONING DIVINITY," is the oldest of all
>the doctrines now known to, and believed in, by man...."   --HPB
>:  THE  MIND IN NATURE  -  Lucifer Sept. 1896;  ULT HPB's
>Articles II 220-221.
>
>Everything relates, finally, to these.  Any question or answer in
>theosophy relates to these for its basis.  We ought to make it a
>habit of tracing the connections when faced with a puzzle.
>
>
>*********************
>
>But HPB does not answer what is for me the fundamental question:
>Why is
>there life at all?  Why are there people and grass and poopies
>and animals
>and sugar?  I mean, WHAT'S THE POINT?
>
>"Tracing the connections" seems little help in this area.  Why
>would the
>"Soul of the Universe" need anything or desire anything?  To do
>so seems to
>suggest an 'imperfection' since, in human thought, perfection is
>without
>any need or desire.  And if 'God' is imperfect or has needs,
>then, unless
>there is something higher than God, there exists at this time no
>such thing
>as perfection.  Yet, many occultic writings speak about "Nirvana"
>or
>"Heaven" or the 'consciousness without need or desire' as if such
>a 'thing'
>or 'being' already is.  But I do not see any evidence or. .
>.ahem. . .logic
>in such a theory.
>
>I partly subscribe to the idea that this universe was created by
>a
>'demi-god' and that helps a bit in dealing with the 'good vs.
>evil'
>problem.  But the philosophy of a 'demi-god' creator is like
>reading a
>chapter in the middle of a book (as it is with most
>philosophies).  A
>Jesuit priest once told me, after I asked the question why God
>"creates,"
>that God is Love and Love needs to exchange and co-create.  Ok,
>but then
>that throws out the concept of anything being in and of itself,
>deathless
>and eternal and self-content and self-fulfilled.
>
>Until humanity can reconcile why God can be perfect and yet still
>need - or
>even possess the capability - to create, creature comforts such
>as ice
>cream will continue to be huge profit-makers.  Then again, if it
>comes out
>that God does have needs, many of us will turn to heroin to cope
>with the
>death of heaven.  To know that even God is vulnerable is. .
>.well. . .you
>know. . .and, not to mention that in order to fulfill a need of
>God's,
>His/Her/Its creations have, and continue to, undergo a great deal
>of
>suffering.  And THAT opens up another box of messy philosophical
>questions.
>
>
>Kym
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET
>List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>leave-theos-l-539B@list.vnet.net
>
>
>-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
>Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
>teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
>"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.