Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00137)

Ah Thomas,

If we could truly love others for what they are, instead of for what 
they could be, or "should" be, how much better a world we would make 
for ourselves. But we are doing the best we can, that I firmly 
believe. In the meantime, we can try to realize that every individual 
is a part of the Absolute, that each carries within his/her innermost 
heart the spark of Divinity, of perfection. This is the paradox of 
the concept of hierarchy. In truth there is no "higher" or "lower." 
Our material finite minds demand some sort of categorization. In 
truth all is one eternally. This apparent separation is an illusion, 
the dream emanating from the inner reality, that which exists for the 
purpose of enlarging the collective consciousness. The more we 
approach to the realization of Unity, the more the illusion of 
separateness decreases in power. 

All the best,
Adelasie

On 16 Sep 2003 at 14:58, Thomas Edgor wrote:

> I have read some of the discussion at this talk group with great
> interest, and this mail Adelaise point out some of the essence in
> theosophy. Of course I know in advance that my wiews will make me a
> victim of prejustice. (being someone on the other side;
> "narrowminded") In fact in my opinion, the theosophical doctrine of
> "oneness" and anti-seperatism is falling under its own rethorical
> argumentation. That is because the hierarcial/pyramidical nature of
> initation, evolution and evolving of conciousness - which is the
> fundamental doctrine in theosophy - preaches not a union of mankind,
> but a separation of the higher, from the lower. This is in my opinion
> nothing else than an abstraction of the laws of nature, which is the
> survival of the fittest - and is the antithesis of the kingdom in
> heaven: our common divine nature, which is creation - where we all are
> equal. Well, the whole doctrine of evolving into God (and its
> falsness), is of course thouroghly presentet in the Bible - I will
> refer to that book. I just want to give another version of "the big
> picture", or the Golden Age. Maybe it is not the utopia of a graet
> human divivne plan, but simply one person being able to grow fond of
> another person, not "falling in love", but the ability to actually
> love things and poeple for what they are, and not what they should
> become.
> 
> Sincerely Thomas
>