Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00159)

Dear Thomas,

So sorry, please forgive. My own insignificant lower mind is 
eternally (instantly) in the way. You are right and ultimately all 
you say is all that matters. And yet, in the illusion of the moment, 
when faced with the question, it will sometimes be appropriate, and 
even helpful, to consider limitations for a time, to suggest their 
existence, in alternation with consideration of eternal reality. 
Perhaps, as long as we keep in mind the polarities that characterize 
our life in this fleeting dream of the divine truth, we will not 
stray beyond help. If we all realized the inherent divinity of all as 
you do, and describe so beautifully, the limitations would recede in 
importance immeasurably

All the best,
Adelasie

On 19 Sep 2003 at 1:15, Thomas Edgor wrote:

> Ah Adelaise (and Dallas)
> 
> You say : "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" , and you are in my opinion absolutely
> right! , but then you >say, "In the meantime" - what meantime? Lets
> say you where a footballer >your goal would have to be to score, and
> at some point you actually had to >kick the ball - or in more
> academical terms," Our material finite minds", >as you put it, have at
> some point to be infinite and divine, or "good >enough". So what are
> you waiting for, the savior or something? Of course if >we try to
> reach the whole world with our arms we had to be a Jesus.... But >an
> old wise saying says : "If you save one person, you save the
> world"(you >cannot know the truth in this unless you have don it). In
> my world, (and >that is n o t your world because I havent met you!) I
> have seen life being >meaningfull and joyfull as a result of a persons
> ability to apreciate me >and others. I have been overwelmed by the
> beauty and the fingerprint of God >in every person. That fingerprint
> is what we share, or love. It is the >mysterious thing that happen
> when you look, not through the glass of Kant >or Hegel (-at some kind
> of infinite shape -,) but straight at the person >expecting nothing
> more that what are, suddenly one starts to love the >person, and
> through their faullts, stupedness, naivety - simply humanity- >and one
> feels that that love comes either from me or you, but from but both >-
> or from God, and then we, maybe for one second only, become divine -
> but >that second is eternity - that is the great paradox!! So why do
> you reduce mankind and call us infinite minds, when our innermost
> nature and ultimate goal is infinite - talk for yourself damm it! You
> contradict yourself again!
> 
> >From: "adelasie" <adelasie@surfari.net>
> >Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: Theos-World time to review
> >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:58:30 -0700
> >
> >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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________ MSN
> Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg
> og dine venner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>