Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00468)

The following are some comments to various postings:

Brenda: <I don't know why Eldon is so philosophical and doesn't
use enough examples.>

I have to take up for your husband here, Brenda. I
think that his responses to Daniel have been right on the mark,
 and well said. Of course, my wife accuses me of living on the
mental plane too...

Ann:<As of September 10, 1995, there will be no extra charge for
mail messages. >

There is a god in heaven after all! Thank the gods and
goddesses. It cost me $4 today to read the 40 messges that
appeared since yesterday. As a matter of fact, I was ready to
switch to AOL until I read your notice, Ann. Thanks.

Eldon: < And Purucker makes it clear that one of the
first steps for new students is to shut down the psychic, to
concentrate on the spiritual and selflessness, to deal with life
in a simple, plain, but magically spiritual way.>

I agree with you here, Eldon, per new students. However, it
is difficult to say exactly who is new and who is
old unless we can look into other's past lives. The impulse to
develop psychic "powers" (which are largely overrated except for
the still small voice of the intuition) must come from within.
If there is a trace of fear about such a step, then my advice
has always been to wait.

Ann: <In my own words, I would say they need to open the heart.
Development of compassion comes before any psychic power, which
can be abused like any power or ability.>

I agree. But please, lets all realize that compassion
too can be abused. For example, during the crusades,
Christians killed the "heathen" out of compassion because
they were living in sin. They rationalized that the longer
they lived in sin, the more they would suffer in Hell, so by
killing them before they got any older, they were actually
doing them a big favor. Hitler killed millions of Jews with
the rationalization that the world would be better off - thus
he had a certain degree of compassion for the world. Perhaps
the trick here is to develop 'universal compassion' rather
than selective compassion. Although, we all have to start
somewhere, and one's own family (a selection) is usually a
good place to begin.

Daniel: I kind of like "liberal pudding." And why do you
say that liberal pudding is not theosophy?

Patrick: I like your healthy aura approach. Emotions _do_
get in the way at times.

Daniel: <Argument of Cause
This premise declares that nothing that exists can exist without
something other than itself. Water needs H2 & 0. Mass needs
space...etc.>

I wonder where you picked this silly idea up from?
Water does not "need H2 & O", rather water IS H2 & O. Nor,
if you have read Einstein, does matter/mass "need" space,
but rather it is the presence of matter that creates space,
and conversely it is the bending of space that produces
matter. There is no "need" - except in your own mind.
When a mystic declares the oneness of ALL, where is the
"something other?" Or are you against mysticsm as well?

Daniel: <Dependency cannot be seperated from independency.>

I agree with you here, since both are two sides of
a duality. (You might consider purchasing a spell checker).

Daniel: <Argument of Change
The premise reveals that everything that exists must at some
point in time not exist in its current condition. The Law of
Entropy drives this argument. You nor I existed 100 yrs ago nor
will we exist 100 yrs from now. Our current condition will
change. This change will always be degraded.>

I think that all theosophists will agree that everything
in manifestation (and thus in space and time) is subject to
change. Change, after all, is what time is all about. However,
you have to be careful of your use of the term entropy. The
idea of things "degrading" via increasing entropy only applies
to closed systems, my friend. We, as living beings, are open
systems, and are not subject to the law of entropy. In fact,
if you read some of the latest work in Chaos Theory, you
will see something called Prigogine's Entropy - this is
the entropy of an open system, developed by Ilya Prigogine,
and it can either increase, remain unchanged, or decrease
depending upon a system's relationship with its environment.
Anyway, the very fact that all manifestation in space and
time changes, implies that there can be no such thing as
objective reality or immobility - except possibly change
itself.

Daniel: <Argument of Causality
Only that which is not bound by CAUSE/CHANGE can be the prime
mover (whether personal or impersonal). The primemover does not
require anything other than itself to exist, and cannot change.
And in this only the Prime Mover can be considered an Actual
infinite. There are no known actual infinites that exist within
the bounds of CAUSE/CHANGE and the Laws of Thermodynamics.>

That which is not bound by cause/change is outside
of space and time, outside of our space-time continuum
altogether. Lots have been said about this unspeakable
region. I think that most theosophists would call this
region Beness, and equate it with the Thatness of Hinduism
and the nirvana of Buddhism. Your argument that something
"not bound by cause" is itself the agent of causality seems
a bit weak. I see divinity as very much "bound by cause."
Why else would it create or manifest itself at all? If
divinity (alias your "Prime Mover") were not "bound by cause"
I doubt that we would be here talking about such subjects.
Also, most theosophists would not agree with the notion that
divinity does not require anything other than itself to
exist. According to HPB, divinity must inhale and exhale in
order to exist, much like we do. Its inhale is the Arc of
Ascent and its exhale is the Arc of Descent, and without
these two, divinity would not be divinity at all. The gods
require man to worship them, and without man, there are
no gods at all. Eldon is quite right when he says that our
physical world needs man in order for it to exist.

Daniel: <The BIg Bang THEORY is represented as an Actual
Infinite and therefor should be disconsidered...Even Steven
Hawking declared that the beginning was bound by these laws.
And that there is no evidence whatsoever to declare otherwise.>

I am afraid that your thoughts are a bit muddled
here, and I am unable to follow what you are trying to say.
The BIG BANG theory is just that, a theory. There are many
holes in it, and there are lots of variations and versions
of it in existence today. None can give us all of the right
answers, and so all are a bit lacking. Steven Hawking, who
I will credit as a great scientist, is a jerk insofar as
the occult or even religion is concerned. He is a pure
materialist, and is proud of it. You can certainly quote
him in reference to anything scientific, but please leave
him out of any theosophical discussions. BTW, Hawking's
No-Boundary Model discredits the Big Bang Model, but so far
there are very few scientists who give any credit to Hawking's
model, which he admits is just a theory anyway. His No-
Boundary Model would have an endless series of Big Bangs
followed by Big Crunches without end. In this, his model
seems more theosophical than the single explosion of the Big
Bang Model. But all of these models are pure theory. I
would never call any of them an "actual infinite," whatever
you mean by such a term.

Daniel:<He is not bound by those laws, because He is the
Creator of those laws.>

Sorry, but every creator is bound by their
creations; it's a law, you see...

Daniel:<It is kharmatic influence on this temporal existence that
promotes the unification of thought, wisdom and understanding
with those that have been brought to thread. Theosophic.>

Say what??? Are you a teenager?

 Jerry S.