Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00062)

Jerry S. wrote:

>	There are numberless universes, ours being but one.  When
>our universe began at the Big Bang, there were only a few universal
>constants present during the initial conditions, that ultimately led
>to the universe around us as we know it.  A very small change to
>any of the constants would have produced a different universe.  This
>idea is not mine, and you can find the details in what is called the
>Anthropic Principle.  Einstein showed that our universe is spherical
>and thus does not go on and on forever.  The teaching of multiple
>universes is well-known in Buddhism.

If our universe is limited and is one of numberless universes, that
seems to mean that the numberless universes go on and on infinitely.
Although this seems to mean that space is infinite, I agree with only
using terms for what can be defined, since there is no such thing as
"the whole universe," if the word "universe" means all that exists.  I
doubt if very many people use the word "universe" for a limited area,
though.  Scientists use the term "the known universe" to distinguish
it from everything else that is unknown, referring to the aggregate of
what is known and what is unknown as "the universe."


>HPB was
>correct to use the word eternal in the sense of the duration of this
>manvantara.  Thus, nothing is truly eternal but the divine monads, which
>end one manvantaric manifestation only to begin another, without
>beginning or end.  Remember, the concept of beginning and end requires
>the concept of time, else they make no sense.  The divine monads are
>beyond time, or timeless, and thus the concept of beginning and end
>do not apply to them.

That time could be anything other than linear and that space could be
curved are ideas I do not grasp.  How the surface of the earth appears
to be linear, but is both curved, limited, and boundless is the
closest I can come to imagining them.


>	The word "objective" should not be limited to physical.

It should apply to any object of perception, including oneself when
one is aware of oneself.


>>I don't see why it has to be materialistic.  My greatest attraction to
>>Theosophy is the Society's founder's and early leaders' claim to know
>>universal, objective, metaphysical, eternal truths.

>	Wow!  I wan't aware of any such claims.

HPB said much about such truths, such as cyclicity and the one divine,
homogeneous substance-principle, etc.  I did not mean to equate
objective with physical.


>>The value of one's existence
>>depends to a great extent on the accuracy of perception.

>	I truly hope that this does not mean what it sounds like.
>If you are suggesting that animals are of less value than humans,
>then I have to disagree.  If you are suggesting that Jews have
>less value than Russians, then again I disagree.  If you are
>suggesting that illiterates have less value than university
>professors, then again I disagree.  If you are suggesting that
>chelas have less value than adepts, then again I disagree,
>and so on.

Assuming that committing suicide is evil for the two given individuals
in question, the life of an individual who correctly perceives that
there is no bridge across the Grand Canyon, and who therefore does not
try to walk across it, has more value than the life of an individual
who incorrectly believes there is a bridge across the Grand Canyon,
since he might try to walk across it and if so, will fall to the
bottom of the canyon.  If accurately perceiving objective reality is
not better than inaccurately perceiving it, what does anything matter?

This is defining "value" differently from the way you took it, but
while we are on the subject of comparing the value of certain
individuals, I also believe that no two individuals are of the same
value.  I see no reason why Jews and Russians would be of any
different value from each other, but human beings are more valuable
than animals, university professors are more valuable than
illiterates, and adepts are more valuable than chelas, in that they
are more evolved.  To consider everything to be of the same value
would make the making of decisions impossible.  If microbes are as
valuable as human beings, what justifies a human being breathing, when
each breath kills hundreds of thousands of them?  If dust mites are as
valuable as human beings, what justifies washing one's sheets, which
kills hundreds of thousands of them?  I tried to be a vegetarian out
of pure principle until I learned these things.  All life supports
itself by killing.  There is no greater fantasy than "ahimsa."
Competition is an inherent part of life.


>>Insanity is the karma of preferring fantasy to reality

>	Well, I suppose it could be, but your broad brush here would
>label everyone who goes to Disneyland as insane.  Why spend
>time and money on the fantasy world of Disney, when we can sit home
>with reality?  I prefer to think that reality itself is a fantasy, and that
>all life is magical.

I probably should have said "insanity is the karma of confusing
fantasy and reality."  In the sense that ideals, which only exist as
potentialities, must be preferred over actualities, everyone must
prefer fantasy to reality.

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