Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00236)

At 03:52 PM 12/12/96 +0000, Eldon Tucker (eldon@theosophy.com) wrote:

>The term "universe" is sometimes used to refer to the totality of

>all that is. But it is also thought of as a particular system of

>existence.


It is misleading if it refers to anything definite, since it implies that
there is only one of them.


>When we talk about the universe starting with "the big bang",

>we're dealing with *a* universe, and not the totality of

>everything, everywhere.


This makes the most sense to me, even though the term "numberless universes"
is literally an oxymoron.


>Purucker has a good term for the totality of all that is. He calls

>it "the Boundless All". The term really includes everything, both

>in and out of existence, both manifest and unmanifest, latent and

>active, seen and unseen. Another term for it might be the

>"multiverse", which implies that there are many, actually

>numberless universes, and we're talking about all of them.


The problem I have with using any word or words to describe "the totality of
all that is" is that it implies that there is something definite to which is
being referred, which is not true if it is infinite.  Negation, when
possible, is more accurate.  Rather than say, for example, that everything
constantly changes, I would rather say that there is nothing which does not
constantly change.  The former implies a limit which the latter does not.


>The term "eternal", for instance, meaning existing throughout all

>time, or until the end of time, when applied to a particular

>world-system means until that system comes to its natural end.

>When we speak of eternal liberation through entering Nirvana, for

>instance, it applies to our attaining freedom from rebirth for the

>duration of the earth's existence, the current planetary

>manvantara.


To the extent that the word "eternal" is understood to mean something
absolute, when referring to something definite, it, also, is misleading.