Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00236)

Yeah, Yeah. But, we can still say without ambiguity that, "The Relative is 
absolute and the Absolute is relative" -- no matter where you view or consider 
them from ... (Like the Buddha said, "The ALL is in the all, and the all isin 
the ALL" or, "IT is neither one nor many, but [as HPB added] both."  

So, these statements philosophically say it all, and leaves open whether or 
not the Relative or the Absolute are separate from each other or exist as 
fundamental realities or entities in themselves that can take independent 
viewpoints having any validity in determining one's relationship to the other.

We could also argue, if we take such a separatist view -- since the relative 
cannot comprehend anything about its relationship to the Absolute (as IT has 
no existence as such) how can it know whether or not that "Absolute" it 
considers is absolute or relative? And if that Absolute has any relationship to the 
relative, it must also be relative to it. (What is a relation, but a relative? 
:-)

Actually, "THAT" can represent either a thing, an idea, or a concept. So even 
if the Absolute is no-thing, it can still be considerd as THAT no-thing.

So, why has this discussion gotten so confusing, when the original statement 
from a point of view that is neither absolute nor relative, said it all?  
</:-)>

Wasn't the original purpose of the statement to inspire one to think how THAT 
paradox can be resolved in one's mind, and not to instigate philosophical 
arguments?

Best wishes,

Leonardo

  

In a message dated 01/09/05 5:47:58 AM, zakkduffany@earthlink.net writes:

>
>View does not mean a literal sight. A concept is a view. The Absolute has
>no terms.
>
>One must take into consideration a direction of meaning from the use of 
words.
>
>It is like the word "THAT." "THAT" represents a "thing". The Absolute is
>not a "thing".
>
>One goes beyond the literal meaning of "THAT" in order to grasp the concept.
>
>"View" can also be taken in the same manner. One can substitute 
>"relationship" for "view". As an example :

>The Absolute is Relative in the relationship of the Relative.
>The Relative is Absolute in the relationship of the Absolute.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>
>From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
>To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 3:48 AM
>
>Subject: Re: Theos-World A Question for the New Year
>
>
>Right. There is no such THING as THE Absolute. So how can we talk about
>itviewing or being viewed?
>
>In a message dated 01/09/05 12:32:51 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:
>
>Perhaps the only thing that is Absolute, is THAT beyond the zero point.
>PRALAYA?
>

>Zakk Duffany <zakkduffany@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>The Absolute is Relative when viewed by the Relative.
>The Relative is Absolute when viewed by the Absolute.
>Perspectives change with the standpoint of viewing.
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>
>From:
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 9:48 PM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World A Question for the New Year
>
>
>In a message dated 01/08/05 3:38:29 PM, krishtar_a@brturbo.com writes:
>
>>If the absolute evolves. it is not absolute.
>>The absolute cannot evolve, or itīd be relative, and when there is>
>>relativeness, we are not dealing with the absolute anymore.(qwack!) 
>>
>>Krishtar
>
>But, "The Absolute is Relative, and the Relative is Absolute." Didn't you
>know that? It comes straught from the mouth of the Buddha, and was verified
>later by HPB.
>
>Leonardo