Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00923)

Jerry S. wrote:

>Tom:
>>If I jump off the Grand Canyon, I do not decide that I will fall.  The
>>law of gravity exists independently of anything I can do and
>>regardless of whether or not I am aware of it.  

>Not altogether true, Tom.  The so-called "law of gravity" is but one
>of many social agreements that we monads made when we came 
>here.  

I am not aware of a reason to believe that.  The idea that these laws
are fixed, universal, and eternal makes the most sense to me, with the
possibility of a higher being deciding them for us being the second
most likely.       


>>The perception of them is real.  They are not.

>	Anything unreal cannot be perceived.  Things are
>perceived because they are real.  You might even say that
>perception is a test for reality.

What would the word "imaginary" mean, if there is no such thing as a
perception that is not identical to reality?


>>If an hallucination is real, the term "mistaken perception" has no
>>meaning.  

>	It could mean that our perception has changed.  It could
>also mean that our perception is not in agreement with society.
>"Hallucination" means that we experience something that no one
>else experiences.  What is seen is nonetheless real.

If I perceived a bridge across the Grand Canyon and tried to walk on
it, and instead fell in, in what sense would the bridge have been
"real" and why would it be wrong to refer to that perception of the
bridge as mistaken?


>>If I thought that there was no such thing as the
>>Theosophical Society, I would be just as truthful as someone else who
>>thought there was.  The word "truth" would be meaningless.

>	"Truth" means different things to differnt people.  It usually
>means whatever we experience.  

That's not at all what I mean by it.  No one has any choice about what
truth is.  It can only be discovered, not decided.  


>The human mind always tries to
>fit our experience into some kind of model or mental system--today
>called a worldview.  When our worldview matches our experience,
>we call this truth or reality.  However, our experiences always keep
>changing, and so our worldview must change, and with it our sense
>of reality or truth changes as well.

That perception of truth changes does not mean that truth changes with
it.  You are defining away the possibility of error.


>>It exists as a perception, but not necessarily as reality.

>	Here is apparently where we have our real disagreement.  I
>can't imagine how anyone can perceive something that doesn't
>exist.  It has to exist in order to be perceived.  

If I perceive a unicorn, the components of that perception must have
some reality.  I know what a horn is.  I know what a horse is.  By
putting together components of what I know, my perception of a unicorn
is possible.  But that doesn't make it accurate.


>Perception is reality.  

Perception is a subset of reality.


>As our perception changes (hopefully toward the spiritual)
>so our reality changes as well.  

There is no such thing as "our reality," unless it means our
perception of reality.


>Thoughts and ideas are real
>things on the inner planes, even those that have no physical
>manifestation or counterpart.

I agree.  All perceptions are objectively real.  But not only are they
not all accurate, I would go so far as to say that none of them are
perfectly and completely accurate, but are all partially so, to unique
degrees.  


>>I find the idea that the law of karma changes as my perception of it
>>changes to be very far-fetched.  That would mean that there is no
>>objective law of karma.  

>	What do you mean by objective?  

The law of karma is objective, as is everything else, in that errors
in perceiving it accurately are possible.


>The general agreements that the monads make between each other
>during each life-wave, for each Globe, establishes the laws, rules,
>and policies of that life-wave and Globe.  

I infer that you mean that the law of karma is unique to each
planetary chain.  How might it differ in other planetary chains from
ours?


>This then becomes the
>collective karma for that life-wave.  This is all done telepathically
>by monads or spiritual beings--which we humans are but the
>temporary human expression.  

Something doesn't seem right about referring to how the individual of
which one is conscious relates to the monad of which one is not
conscious.  I don't see how they cannot be referred to as separate
entities.  I have no awareness of this monad which is distinct from
the individual of whom I am aware.  Assuming they are not separate
entities, this relates in an interesting way to how dogma and
authority are considered to be evil.  How could one who is not aware
of one's monad become aware of it without trusting someone else as an
authority?  No effort to try to be aware of it would or even could be
made without faith in others who say it exists.


>Adepts are bad sports, sometimes, because they are
>able to break the rules with impunity (ie., they can act karmaless).
>However, like all bad sports, they are usually shunned by the
>other players, and they do have a price to pay for their boldness.

Why cannot this price be considered to be their karma?