Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00806)

Hi. I have read your posting again . It is very beautiful and heart-felt,
and yes, there are some major similarities between our messages, but I am
trying to convey something else that is about structure, which I consider to
be a key point. Some material, no matter how well-intended, goes in one ear
and out the other. It has no grp (grip).

About God and ice-cream. If it is desire 4 this, they are of the same. I am
a monotheist, not a pagan, even though I am a Mahayana Buddhist and do not
believe in "God" or a primal cause. Conversely, someone who believes in
"God" can be a pagan (which is o.k. and it can be very beautiful. I know, as
I used to be one when I was very young). It all depends upon how material
is distributed. Maybe I will respond in more detail to your message sometime
in the future. Feel free to write again if you have any more questions.
Sincerely, Wry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: "Location of God"


> 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>