Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00792)

Hi Wry and all of you,

Thanks for answering Wry.
You seem to be allright.
The below answer is meant in a friendly manner.

No thoughts cannot really figure out very much, - they often make trouble,
and disagree with your views.
I suggest you try Atma or God or ParaBrahman - and not Ice cream. Smile.

Wry wrote:
"The conundrum is that which is stated in Daniel's quote of Arthur Osborn
In
order to note "God," one needs to approach from a reference point, which
cannot, by its very nature be unlimited. In other words, in order to note
God, one has to either put God in a box,...." (and so on...)
My Sufilight answer:
Yes. Wry, and that was what my previous email on Love, God, Maya, and
Ignorance stated.
Try this posting - from 22nd november 2002.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/9056
Try reading it again.

Wry wrote:
"The error we generally make as people is that we attempt to return to God.
This is a selfish act, the same as going out for ice cream when one's house
is on fire and there are children in it. "Love" and "God" are terms of
pleasure that are synonymous with ice cream."
My Sufilight answer:
I don't get that. What is wrong with - seeking God or to think God, breathe
God, live with - and - in God ?
Love and God are NOT synonymous with ice cream ! Come on Wry... That must be
a wrong assumption.
Ice cream is something you eat, and it is not really healthy.
(You could be right - but then Wry also could be called an Adept or the
like - just like that... And I don't think so yet Wry. Just me trying to
make a point. >:-) An honest smile.)
With all these chemicals in Ice creams today, which gives people allergic
reactions etc..., that must be stepping on the line, to have such a view.
>:-) (An honest smile.)
But, but: The house - the children and the fire --- and even your ice
cream - is in essence God. I.e. in essence. That was also what my statement
in the previous email on Love, God, Maya, and Ignorance stated.
Try reading it again.


Wry wrote:
"What is generally lacking is a very SPECIFIC practice of conversion, by
which the two oppositions which create the conundrum are combined in such a
way that the concept of "God" does not become an idol or a projected image,
which is a form of spiritual incest."

My Sufilight answer:
"Incest" is, I think, not the proper word Wry, as this is a different issue.
H. P. Blavatsky has said something on - the mentioned "oppositions " in the
above - in The Secret Doctrine.
Something like: The Adwaita Sage say: Everthing is God - ParaBrahman. The
Buddhist says: There is no God.
And Blavatsky say, that both are right, it is just a question about how one
views the world.

In the Bhagavad Gita, which is stated as the Essence of the Upanishads, one
gets, TWO paths:
"1. Those devotees who, always devout, thus
contemplate You (as the attribut ParaBrahm), and those also who
(contemplate)
the Impersihable, the Unmanifest (as Not this, Not that), - which
of them are better versed in Yoga ?
2. Those who, fixing their thought on Me, (The thought of ParaBrahma)
contemplate Me (The thought of ParaBrahm),
always devout, endued with sumpreme faith,
those in my opinion are the best
Yogins."
3.-4. Those who ever contemplate the
Imperishable, the Indefinable, the Unmanifest, the
Omnipresent, and the Unthinkable, the Unchangeable,
the Immutable, the Eternal - having restrained
all the senses, always equanimous, intent
on the welfare of all beings, - they reach Myself (ParaBrahma).
5. Greater is their trouble whose thoughts
are set on the Unmanifest; for the Goal, the
Unmanifest, is very hard for the embodied to reach."
(from a private translation of The Bhagavad Gita)

Well, I am maybe just stupid...

A question to Wry and all readers:
How do one get rid of the Nuclear Weapons on this Planet ?
By not talking about them ?

To all of you: Feel free to do your very best...


from
M. Suiflight with peace and love...







----- Original Message -----
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: "Location of God"


> Hi. I thought everyone would understand my message. Here is a paraphrase.
> Compare this to the original and see if this makes sense: Thought cannot
> figure things out, because it is only one function. To understand requires
a
> balance of thought, feeling and body, which form a sort of trinity.
>
> The conundrum is that which is stated in Daniel's quote of Arthur Osborn
In
> order to note "God," one needs to approach from a reference point, which
> cannot, by its very nature be unlimited. In other words, in order to note
> God, one has to either put God in a box, which obliterates the concept of
> God, as God cannot be boxed, or else to obliterate oneself, in which case,
> God cannot be recognized or noted. Therefore this is an unreconcilible
> situation, but if something is OUTSIDE this situation, these two extremes
> can be polarized consciously in such a way that a third force is created.
In
> such a way, one consciously creates oneself out of a flexible firmanent by
> direct and exact imprint.This is the divine on earth in the manifestation
of
> creative love, which is symbolized by the anointing hand which represents
> the conscious and therefore transcendent ACT and the combination of
duality
> with creativity (two with three to make a five).
>
> The error we generally make as people is that we attempt to return to God.
> This is a selfish act, the same as going out for ice cream when one's
house
> is on fire and there are children in it. "Love" and "God" are terms of
> pleasure that are synonymous with ice cream. But to stay with the "lack"
> and not to move away from it is the beginning of a reversal of the
current,
> out of which is generated the creative act. And true creation is a
completed
> and yet continuously generative deed, the end event connected to the
> beginning by means of the brea-dth or the middle. This is BEING.
>
> What is generally lacking is a very SPECIFIC practice of conversion, by
> which the two oppositions which create the conundrum are combined in such
a
> way that the concept of "God" does not become an idol or a projected
image,
> which is a form of spiritual incest. This is not about talk, which,
> unfortunately, will not do the trick, but about using language in such a
way
> that talking becomes a sacred act and a doorway. It is not the subject of
> conversation that makes talk sacred, but the FORM of the consciously
omitted
> essentials, which cannot be described by language anyway, only
> cheapened.This omission, if structured in such a way that something which
> cannot be spoken is GIVEN, forms a sacred vowel. Thank you for asking me
> what you do not understand , and by doing so, helping me to understand
> better myself. Sincerely, Wry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 12:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: "Location of God"
>
>
> > HI Wry and all of you,
> >
> > Please clarify that statement Wry.
> > I didn't get it.
> >
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight...being humble and all...
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 8:27 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: "Location of God"
> >
> >
> > > You make things too complex. Thinking thinking thinking will deplete
> > > you. Such a conundrum as stated below is like a genie in a bottle.
> > > It is always between oneself and ones "God". What is between comes
> > > out in the conscious ACT as an actice FORCE. This is why the human
> > > hand is a symbol of Jesus Christ. You people will talk talk talk till
> > > death comes and gets you with his grinning skull and bones. There is
> > > no bread-th to this. Will you never stop? Wry
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> > > theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Daniel and all of you,
> > > >
> > > > A view:
> > > > A solution to the below problem could be - if one uses a "mirror"
> > > on the
> > > > views on ParaBrahman one might get the idea !
> > > > Try this posting - from 22nd november 2002.
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/9056
> > > >
> > > > Here the idea of the mirror and maya comes forward.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here it is again --- changed slightly:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Philosophers of all lands and all times have sought to discover the
> > > truth
> > > > about God, the objective world and man, as well as their mutual
> > > > relationship. Maya is the will that causes all three. It is a clear,
> > > > flawless mirror. When the Sattwic nature is reflected in that
> > > mirror, God
> > > > results; when the Rajasic nature is reflected, the Jiva or
> > > individualised
> > > > self results. It is ever-anxious to grow, to garb, to survive and
> > > to secure.
> > > > When thamasic nature is reflected, matter (the objective world) is
> > > the
> > > > result. All three are ParaAtman, but they derive their Reality as
> > > its
> > > > reflections. When undergoing reflection they attain different forms
> > > and
> > > > combinations of characteristics. the One becomes many; every one of
> > > the many
> > > > is Real only because of the One in it. MAYA too is a component of
> > > the One;
> > > > by the emphasis on that component, the One transformed Itself into
> > > many.
> > > > But the One is ever One.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Love is NOT negative.
> > > > Maya is also known as Universal Mother, Sakthi, Kali, Durga, Aum...
> > > >
> > > > Maya - Prakrithi is God's manifestation.
> > > > Everything has come from God.
> > > > There is nothing except God.
> > > > Nature is God's manifestation.
> > > > The cosmos is the embodiment of God.
> > > > There is nothing not even an atom in the world without God.
> > > > God is the immanent power in everything.
> > > >
> > > > God and Cosmos are related as Cause and Effect. The relationship is
> > > > inter-dependent and inseparable.
> > > > The basic truth of nature is One in the many; that is the key to its
> > > > understanding.
> > > > The ONE - in God alone is all flux, all this changing Cosmos,
> > > established.
> > > > All that you see in the cosmos - the moving and stationary objects -
> > > is a
> > > > manifestation of the ATMA.
> > > > In the spiritual realm, what you hear at every step is ATMA.
> > > > What you see is ATMA.
> > > > What makes you forget is also ATMA !
> > > > The world is designed to teach man to be one with God.
> > > > The entire universe originated from sound vibrations.
> > > > The one indestructible sound OM is Brahman, the Universal Absolute.
> > > > Everything is Maya, but the TRUTH is shown there.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maya brings trouble, and at the same time protects the disciple of
> > > God.
> > > > The clouds seem to be stuck to the sky; so too MAYA (the tendency to
> > > > conclude that what the senses tell us is true or to project our
> > > preferences
> > > > and prejudices on to the world around us) gives us an untrue
> > > picture of
> > > > BRAHMAN.
> > > > It makes us believe, that the world is Real. Its impact warps our
> > > reasoning
> > > > process, our sensory impressions and our view on God, on creation,
> > > and on
> > > > man. It spreads before us a diversity which tantalises and deceives.
> > > >
> > > > Maya flourishes on ignorance and ends with knowledge.
> > > > The ignorance which prevents and postpones the inquiry into the
> > > nature of
> > > > the Atma makes Maya flourish. So Vidya - AtmaVidya spells the doom
> > > of Maya.
> > > >
> > > > Another interesting point is this: It may be argued since Maya
> > > produces
> > > > Vidya, Maya is right and proper and deserving respect; but the
> > > Vidya that
> > > > araises oout of it is also not permanent. As soon as Avidya is
> > > destroyed
> > > > through Vidya, the Vidya too ends ! The tree and the fire, both are
> > > > destroyed when the fire ends !
> > > >
> > > > Love is our nature.
> > > > Love is all.
> > > > Everyone must become the embodiment of Love.
> > > > Love alone makes lige meaningful.
> > > > Live in Love.
> > > > When you have LOVE, you practise non-voilence.
> > > > The ATMA can be known only through LOVE; all claims to the contrary
> > > are
> > > > spouriuos and missing the mark.
> > > > Shower it, and you will be showered in return !
> > > > Stop sharing Love totally, and there will be no more to share.
> > > > Develop love by sharing it.
> > > > Love is the basis for Self-discovery.
> > > > The end of knoeledge is Love.
> > > > Love is constant. Only onchanging love that shines brightly in the
> > > heart is
> > > > true love.
> > > > We should have faith in Love which is another form of God.
> > > >
> > > > There is only one royal road for the spiritual journey ... LOVE.
> > > > Love lead you quickly to the Goal.
> > > > Love is nothing else but Love. --- Ignorance bars your view.
> > > > Love is the fundamental spiritual discipline.
> > > > Love wins against all evils.
> > > > Love is patient when needed.
> > > > Love your enemies. Treat even the ones you hate as your friends.
> > > > Love is NOT negative.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > from
> > > > M. Sufilight with peace...or a peace...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...>
> > > > To: <theos-talk@y...>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 7:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Theos-World "Location of God"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > In a chapter titled "Location of God" in his book THE COSMIC WOMB,
> > > > > Arthur W. Osborn comments:
> > > > >
> > > > > ". . . when we ask such a question as, 'Does God exist?' we are
> > > > > virtually implying someone or something OBJECTIVE in the same
> > > sense
> > > > > that we as individuals are objective. To be existent is to
> > > > > objectively real; it is a particular manifestation of a
> > > > > primal 'isness.' We are therefore back again to the problem of
> > > > > immanence; and transcendence and immanence, if universal, would be
> > > > > pantheism."
> > > > >
> > > > > "If God exists, therefore, He must represent some Reality having
> > > > > objectivity RELATIVE to man and, indeed, to the universe. But
> > > this
> > > > > poses the problem of reconciling the postulated quality of
> > > > > universality with the objective implication of being in existence.
> > > > > As we have noted, universality leads logically to pantheism,
> > > whereas
> > > > > existence, with its aspect of objectivity, implies LIMITATION." p.
> > > > > 57 caps added.
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel H. Caldwell
> > > > > BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> > > > > http://hpb.cc
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>