Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00809)

Hi Wry and all of you,

Thanks Wry.
Wry wrote:
"Some material, no matter how well-intended, goes in one ear
> and out the other. It has no grp (grip)."
My Sufilight answer:
But Wry, then the message must have been for another audience.
If one person don't like the email, then maybe 20 others (maybe friends) are
standing in line.
Sometimes the audience is small. Sometimes it is big.
And there is always a brain between the ears, a sort of filter - do you dig
that ?, and that even if some don't think they have one.
Ignorance makes people in doubt about what to write, say or do.
Wisdom and knowledge are never in doubt.
>:-) Smile.

Even some books are not for everyone to read.
Some people ought really not to read The Secret Doctrine, because they
either
can't understand it - or it will lead them and their Souls needs
periodically away from wisdom and God - ParaBrahman.
This is maybe a surprise to some.
Maybe the book could help them later on. Or else there will be another book
or another experience.
Sometimes those who think they don't belong to the audience - they on the
contrary infact do so.

from
M. Suflight with...very few readers...interested in learning how to
learn...>:-)



----- Original Message -----
From: "wry" <wry1111@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: "Location of God"


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