Jun 02, 1996 01:19 AM
by alexis dolgorukii
At 10:31 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
Jerry: The set of apparent questions and answers below, are Martin's
questions in response to my pamphlet; ruminations, and my first set of
responses to him. The second set is in preparation and I will post it in the
next couple of days (this is a busy weekend for me socially) Today (the 2nd
june)is my 25th anniversary with my domestic partner John. The only
differences between your views and mine are that, as always, yours tend to
be less radical.
>The conversation between Alexis and Martin is very interesting, and
>I can't help butting in with some of my own comments:
>>Alexis>The universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and
>>nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical state is going
>>to have more than an attitudinal effect on their future.
> Actually, I would think that an "attitudinal effect" would be
>sufficient. This is, I believe, exactly what the "skandhas" are all about.
>>>Martin comments: This seems to dismiss all notion of the interrelatedness
>>>of cosmos and humans. When I say that ethics is built-in in the structure
>>>of the universe, how do you react then?
>>Alexis>There is no judgement, there is no retribution, "seeking of
>>there is only a milieu that every individual creates for themselves.
> I agree with Alexis on this one. God help us all, if the universe
>has a built-in standard of ethics. The various theories of karma are our
>own human inventions that attempt to "explain" the universe to the
>human mind. They are models of reality, and as such fall short of the
>>Alexis>The only think that matters, the only thing in the universe that
>>matters, is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it
>>processes and stores information, that is critical. That's what the Universe
>>is all about, the infinitization of intelligence, and the processing and
>>information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid. All
>>information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful
>>to the universal data-bank.
> Although in different words, I have arrived at this same conclusion
>myself. The Theosophical teaching that the purpose in evolution is self-
>consciousness and that we all end up better than before is nonsense, in
>my view. During the Arc of Descent we gain ignorance, and during the
>Arc of Ascent we gain intelligence and knowledge.
>>Martin: This spawns another question: how long does this growth
>>of love, of perception of unity continue?
> How long does a manvantara last?
>>Alexis>What an individual human being does with their personal information
>>data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter
>>in the slightest, within the universal paradigm.
> I think that it does matter a little. The "gods" whatever else
>they may be, digest the knowledge that we learn. In a practical sense,
>one person's experience is infinitesimal, but in a theoretical sense,
>it does count a little bit. Its a bit like the butterfly effect--a butterfly
>its wings in California will effect the weather in Maryland in a few weeks--
>but the amount of this effect is too small to measure.
>>Alexis: Now as to "reincarnation" as the intrinsic evolving intelligence
>> manifests serially but non-consequentially, each succeeding manifestation,
>>and I must emphasize that they are not inter-connected except by way of the
>>Intrinsic evolving intelligence [Jiva, not Manas I take it], is, nonetheless,
>> a consequence of all the previous manifestations and so is "flavoured"
>>or "coloured" by them. But each of them is unique and individual and so is
>>the "last in line".
> Your "intrinsic evolving intelligence" is what HPB called the
>Reincarnating Ego or simply Ego (capital E). I am not so sure that any
>ray or personality can be called the "last-in-line" except in a relative
>sense, because time itself is mayavic, and it is the only thing that
>separates the various ego manifestations. Otherwise, I agree.
>>Alexis: "Karma", to me, is simply one of religion's "little control
>>It's a way to make people "behave" according to the dictates of religion and
>>more important than that, the dictates of the people that run the religion.
> This is today's materialistic (ala scientific) viewpoint. If we
>look at karma as simply the Law of Causality, and allow for a little chaos,
>I have no problem at all with the doctrine of karma.
>>Martin: It is not something *outside* oneself. That would be absurd
>>indeed. It is inside onself but has to do with the interconnectedness
>>of all beings.
> Wrong. It is both inside and outside. There is an external
>and an internal karma. Hit your finger with a hammer. The pain that
>you experience is an external karmic effect of your action.
><Alexis: but most of all, it's "the roll of the dice".
> I call it the "Chaos Factor" but a rose is a rose is a rose.
>>Martin: The 'roll of the dice' theory seems a bit too mechanical to me
>>If such accidents happen, I would rather think of some recompensation
>>in another life. 'Roll of the dice' is inherently injust. Where does
>>this leave the idea of justice? Do you throw that away?
> An extremely good question. However, life consists of
>dice rolls (sorry Einstein, but God does in fact play dice) and causality
>both. It contains both chaos and order, and cannot have one without
>the other lurking about somewhere. A person's birth is most often
>karmic (order) but occassionally will be pure chance (chaos). The Chaos
>Factor kicks us in the teeth every once and awhile, without any explaination
>or "by your leave." Justice is mavaic, like everything else in life. If
>you like, you can always say that even chaos is one's karma, and in
>fact, you won't be too wrong, because it is what is sometimes called
>collective karma, and it comes about simply because we agreed to
>be mortal human beings when we came here, and so agreed to
>accept life as it is, chaos and all. If you feel a need for a "reason"
>why something horrible happened to you, then just remember the
>famous line "life's a bitch, then you die" and the fact that you signed
>up for this when you came here. If you are religious, the famous
>line "its God's will, and God works in mysterious ways" has helped
>a lot of folks over the years, and makes about as much sense as
>>Alexis (re religion): They are unorthodox, but they are my views. I take
>>responsibility for them.
>>Martin comments: I bet you do!
> Although Alexis's view is a bit harsh, I tend to agree that we would
>all be better off without relgions of any kind.
> Jerry S.
> Member, TI
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application