Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00364)

June 14 2005

Friends 

May I cut in and ask: 

I have always been confused by the difference some see in the "linear" and
"non-linear" (is it then spherical?) view points or perspectives.

Put your finger in the fire and it gets burned. LINEAR ?

Fingers and fires are not compatible. Non-Linear ? Spherical? Experience
?


Is not the 2nd proposition more general == a law of nature ?


If the human MIND as presently embodied, is an all-inclusive intelligence
that ranges in scope between the universal and the selfish personal, then
broadly speaking, it is dual, or, can it use several modes of thinking and
reasoning ?

Examples of contrast:

1	Wise / Spiritual / True / Virtuous and

2	Foolish / inconsequentional / False / Vicious /Material


But there has to be a "PERCEIVER" who uses the Mind as a tool.

Is it not this that chooses the kind of logic essential to secure honest
answers to problems of all kinds?

Of what possible lasting value is time spent on devising inaccurate or false
answers ?

Is there not a vast pool of experience where these problems (or close
analogies) were solved and the solutions recorded?  

Can they be called the universal and impersonal, impartial LAWS of Nature
and the Universe ?

It seems to me the moral aspect of any question is of extreme importance?
Or am I wrong?

Is it our ambition to be "first," or an "authority," that clouds this
situation? Where does TRUTH reside -- if we are seeking it ? 

Best wishes,

Dallas

--------------------------------

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:10 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Re: Unbounded Freedom

<< This appears to be a linear perspective at work. >>

I would view it as more of a Theosophical perspective than linear or
non-linear.

<< There are other perspectives. >>

Sure there are. Joe Sixpack has one too. I believe that we each go with the
perspective that best fits our worldview.


<<There is a perspective from which one may understand that 
karma is the optimal fulfillment of choice and as such is not limited to 
only a linear progression through time from past to present to future.>>

You seem to be agreeing with me here that acausal events are possbile.
However, modern Theosophy seems very set on defining karma as causality
over time, and especially ethical causality. Causaility is cause and effect
over time, with cause coming first followed in good time by effect. By
definition, causes preceed effects. When you suggest that an effect can
preceed a cause, you are no longer talking about causality as we know it or
karma as a Cycle of Necessity. Just because I make a choice, it is never
"necessary" that my choice come true. But in terms of causality, once a
cause is set in motion, it does necessarily bring forth an effect, but it
does so over the Arrow of Time which is unidirectional.

If "karma is the optimal fulfillment of choice" then what do we call it
when things happen to us that we did not choose? Perhaps you could provide
some examples so that I can understand your perspective better.


<< A choice made today can be fulfilled a 1000 years ago.>>

On the surface this sounds bazzarr and incredulous. You appear to be making
a mockery of time. 

If I have lived countless past lives, as Theosophy and Hinduism and
Buddhism all proclaim, then is seems logical that few new choices are left
available for me to make today. But none of these religions/philosophies
would agree that past events are the fulfillment of present choices,
especially as we no longer remember them. This idea is new to me, except I
may have encountered something like it in the old Seth books.

Besides, I personally believe that both past and future are plastic and I
find that their events change with our perceptions of them. I see the
future as a realm of possibilities and the past as a realm of possible
memories. Only their interface, the present, has reality or meaning. 

One more thought here: Whether a choice made today is fullfilled in some
future life or in some past life is meaningless to me during this one. As
Jerry Schueler, I can make a choice. If that choice bears results during
this life, then I feel impressed and am a happy camper. Telling me that,
'Whoa guy that choice was fulfilled in some past life' is just as
meaningless to me as the Theosophical promise that it will bear fruit in
some future life. The past is gone and the future is that which never
comes. Both are plastic and I can see whatever I want to see in both of
them. So, I would prefer to make a choice and then fantasize about it
coming true, after all, you claim that a fantasy is just as real as
anything else, that imputational reality is just as real as conditional
reality which is just as real as ultimate reality. So, in this sense I can
make any and all of my choices or desires come "true" by just fantasizing. 


<< It is this line of thinking that allows one to grasp the concept of
becoming what one already is. >>

I can grasp such a concept without the need for reversing causailty. I can
do this by assuming evolution is in conditional reality while what we
already are is in ultimate reality. 


CUT