Oct 02, 2001 12:01 PM
Tuesday, October 02, 2001
In absolute terms, during manifestation, nothing is "stable"
except the unmodified SOURCE, or rather since it cannot be
defined in our limited terms: the ABSOLUTE, the SPIRITUAL ALL.
It really cannot be given a name. To some it is NO-THING.
So I agree that the rules, laws, etc that Science uses are at
best "resting places." They have a limited time value on which
we perch our concepts. If we are wise we do not solidify them
but admit they are mutable, yet if one pleases they are
"subjective" (not on this plane) "centers of force" or, IDEAS.
If the physical and astral planes change constantly, then their
supports (Life energy - prana, and Kama-desire) are also mutable.
In respect to those, the Mind seems more stable. Yet, the Mind
is a "tool" in the grasp of the PERCEIVER. Shall we not say that
the Perceiver is ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS [ The INDIVIDUALITY] taken as
a Monadic unity [The THREE-IN-ONE] in material manifestation and
evolution? These are of course words, and are modified by the
concepts each individual holds in regard to their qualities and
The concept as I grasp it is that the Eternal thought in the
Eternal Mind (Gita) fragments itself throughout the UNIVERSE On
our Earth it fragments itself into the innumerable centers of
dynamic intelligence and force which are called MONADS. These
then, are the "Eternal Pilgrims" in search of their Goal: Total
Mankind represents a stage along this great path whereby the
intelligence of Matter, ever-building, the wisdom of spirit
ever-inclusive, meets with the power of discrimination -- the
MIND which has the curious independence that enables it to view
material constructs on one side and perfect IDEALS in terms of
altruistic living on the other. (Or so I visualize it,
simplistically of course.)
But to my mind this does not obviate the great and general Law of
KARMA -- the CAUSELESS CAUSE -- as it is sometimes spoken of.
"Faith" or "belief" to me is an expression of ignorance unless it
is a referral to some proposition that one has already
demonstrated to one's self as reasonable and exact -- which
terms, of course may have different meaning for different minds,.
As to SUBJECTIVE. Everything is ultimately subjective. No
"objective" event in the material universe (VISIBLE OR
INVISIBLE) -- to my way of thinking -- nothing is totally and
forever immobilized. If, say I to myself, this idea is grasped,
it has to be placed as feeling and idea subjectively, before the
screen of the Mind. Then it is an object for the mind to
consider. I believe the MIND employs the brain (where our
consciousness is under our control and most active at present) as
a medium of communication between the MATERIAL and the
IMMATERIAL, or between the form and the causative essence of that
"form." It can no more be objectivized than the Mind or the
"impact of a desire," or a "feeling." One may depict it in
words, or other images, but the real thing is inexpressible in
any of our comparative and necessarily limited terms. And yet,
we are all presently forced to employ words to communicate our
IDEAS. There has to be a reason for this set of limitations. I
often wonder what it would be like to communicate mind to mind,
and yet to distinguish one set of thoughts from another set. I
suppose we are trending towards this.
In regard to mountain moved by faith -- does it not say that the
material is altered by the immaterial power of determined
thought? Is this not the "Will?"
What added to "faith" moves the mountains? What is the actual
focus. There is also I agree a usage of "faith" as a synonym for
WILL. But then one needs to define WILL and let the common usage
of "faith" as a word expand. I don't really mean to change gears
here, but to indicate that Jesus ' saying is true in its own
context. The one who applies has to chose according to his
development and progress which he desires to use.
As to GOD One has to decide if there is such a thing and what
its powers are, According to those views so will be the usage.
But the general public has only a very nebulous idea of what GOD
signifies. Theosophy tries to gather all those meanings into
I DO NOT think it at all reasonable that any GOD we may think of
as related to our EARTH only is also the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE.
Our Earth is altogether too puny -- though large to us. What
ever its administrator may be ( the PLANETARY SPIRIT) perhaps --
under whatever name -- it is benevolent, tolerant, lawful and
ever-handed to all the beings that are evolved under its general
We either have
1. Nature and the UNIVERSE in its spiritual aspect -- impersonal
and honest as GOD immanent in all (omnipresent), or
2. We place GOD in a limited form of some kind and make HIM a
creator outside of the laws of creation which he devises. And we
make HIM separate from HIS CREATION -- which is it to be?
Are we to be personally annihilated because we question or
investigate these ideas? Are we to be ruled by the fear of the
unknown. Or are we to remain beatifically ignorant, and let the
priests and the padres worry over those things -- and without our
queries or interference ?
In either case the examination of GOD'S WORKS (assumed to be
Nature, Man, etc...) is the province of Science (broadly) -- but
the individual's MIND does the examining and the conceptualizing
and the theorizing. A knowledge of REALITY ( if available to the
embodied mind) would solve these speculations and doubts. But
they would not stop the power of the INDIVIDUAL to maintain and
purse his own speculations or be limited by whatever doubts he
has provided himself with.
As to REINCARNATION. What does one do with the Spirit as a "Ray
of the Deific Principle?" If the body dies what happens to it?
As to what one has thought about, willed, hoped for, desired,
achieved -- what happens to those ? Are they entirely wasted --
all these efforts? If not wasted where are they stored? If
stored, the when are they given another "existence?"
I agree with you that "faith moves mountains." But Jesus was not
too specific was he? He left it to the disciples to find out
what he meant. I think we are trying to do that, each in his own
But the value of these exchanges is that they widen our own
perceptions and then deepen them to include the work and thoughts
of others -- still it remains for us to adopt or reject them, or
to seek to understand the basis for the logic that another
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:41 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: Faith
<<<If we were studying physics or chemistry, or
mathematics and astronomy -- or engineering, the question of
"faith" would not enter the equation. The "pure" Science is a
common meeting ground.>>>
Many scientists would not agree with this. I don't agree with it
either. I recommend you read CHOOSING REALITY: A BUDDHIST VIEW OF
PHYSICS AND THE MIND, by B. Alan Wallace (Snow Lion) which
provides a lot of hard evidence to the "faith" that is required
in modern science where theories abound. In it you will read
things like "What we experience, however, is change, and upon
close inspection it seems that time is simply a concept that we
impute on change." (p 108) and so on ...
<<<But once one steps into the arena of "religion" a great deal
of confusion arises, and everyone finds that, unlike the
Sciences, the concepts of faith, belief and religion seem to get
rather uncertain, foggy.>>>
Rather than "foggy" Dallas, perhaps you should say, subjective.
All life is subjective, the external "reality" of it being an
imputation of the human mind.
<<< FAITH -- as a blind and unreasoning adoption of any
explanation (or of none) which springs solely from ignorance,
hope and a desire to be happy and undisturbed.>>>
It too bad that you always take such a low opinion of faith,
Dallas. A great man once said that it can move mountains.
FACT 1: There is absolutely no proof that God exists.
FACT 2: There is absolutely no proof that God does not exist.
People who believe in God are called theists, and they take it on
faith that God exists and act accordingly.
People who believe that God does not exist are called atheists,
and they take it on faith that God does not exist and act
Both views are based on faith.
The most crass materialist takes it on faith that his/her
physical senses are accurate and that what they reveal to the
brain-mind is reality. A materialist uses faith just as must as a
Christian, or Buddhist, or Theosophist, or anyone else.
Scientists have faith in their mutual observations. We all have
faith in something.
The same is true with reincarnation. Some believe in it, and
others do not. Not a single person knows absolutely for sure if
we reincarnate or not. Theosophy is a belief system as much as
any other, although I know you don't want to hear that, Dallas.
But Theosophy does help explain psychic and spiritual experiences
that our physical senses don't explain. And so we find it useful.
Call me crazy, but I am a big believer in faith moving mountains.
It moves lives and countries and even worlds, every moment of
every day, and it does so whether we are conscious of it or not
(perhaps you are not yet aware of your own faith in how you
perceive reality? Change all of your "I know"s to "I believe"s
and you will be closer to the truth, my friend). Our most beloved
and trusted assumptions of life and reality are just that -
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application