Correction and comment on primal cause
Jan 22, 2003 01:24 PM
I said, "this is what happens when the skandas are understood," and what it was meant to be is "this is what happens when the skandas are not understood."
Dallas, I will try to answer your question, "How can it be contrary?" (a primal cause to the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism) another day. Actually, a brief comment now. Please try to ponder this answer if you don't understand it, and, of course, I could always be wrong. One simple way to think about this fascinating subject is to understand that the concept of a primal cause is an OXYMORON, as it really performs no function, except as an a key component in an ALLEGORY, which is understood to be such, in order to convey in a form that is also allegorical certain material that goes along with this in such a way that it fits into an organic whole and perhaps, AT A CERTAIN TIME in the development of humanity, regulate human behavior in such a way that it would be less disorderly, (as well as convey certain knowledge to a select few, who were educated enough to understand it). For man, everything starts with three, not with one, and Madame Blavatsky said as much when she spoke of the "elohim". not that she was an authority any more than I am.
Sorry about all the typos in my previous message. I spent too long writing this and did not have time to check it. I am a working person (believe it or not), and do not have time for much more of this. Wry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application