Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00564)

Dear Friends and Wry

“Skandhas” are the monads -- universally present and
indestructible -- like the “atoms of science, they are perpetual
motion machines and in addition they are conscious.

As thinkers, we, humanity, each of us, employ a certain number of
monads of lesser experience to form our vehicles or
principles” - It is a mutually agreed on situation as only those
Monads as have affinities with us aggregate around us, and we are
supposed to serve as their tutors, their examples and show them
the path of righteousness.

We need only ask our selves if we are doing this.

I do not think we can probe intellectually (perhaps we can do it
intuitionally ?) the ultimate BEGINNING of life and the
Universe, or even of our own lives.

Certainly it can be regarded as a paradox or an oxymoron, if we
attempt to assign values to the forces or conditions that
produced our present. They are overwhelmingly antique.

Of course the periodical incarnations of men and globes and the
Universe is probable.

No form of Buddhism that I know tends to restrict thought. They
all encourage the widest and broadest areas of search. Some of
their followers do try to restrict their vocabularies. I think
that tends to confusion.

Se if that makes any sense

Dal

===========================

-----Original Message-----
From: wry Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:25 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Correction and comment on primal cause

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]