Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tl00313)

----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerald Schueler <gschueler@iximd.com>
> Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 3:22 PM
> Subject: Karma vs Paranirvana

> I have searched
> long and hard for an overall Cause for the whole bag, with no
> luck (except as having creativity an inherent divine
> characteristic which I don't like because it implies an
> initial assumption, and one assumption is pretty much
> as good as any other. However, there is an unwritten
> law that says that all models require initial assumptions
> so I don't think we can ever get out of this one).

Where do I find this unwritten law?  Or via the above, have you just
written it?  The kabbalist model is interesting in that it begins with
the assumption of Nothing, and proceeds ex nihilo via emanation (not
creation) towards manifestation.

In practice, the top end of the model has little real value in this
life, as our physical equipment seems to be incapable of verifying it.
Further down the scale we *can* verify quite a lot from personal
experience (eventually) but there is a cut-off point beyond which our
tiny minds cannot go.  For this reason, I like to use that part of the
kabbalist model which can be demonstrated to work as advertised (once I
can get behind the jargon to the facts).

As for the rest, everything suggests that more answers come in Part
Two - after physical death, but I doubt that even then I shall know
ALL - so far, all the dead people I have met don't know everything, just
more than I do, which they find almost impossible to convey .....
>
> Most Theosophists want to make
> karma universal and applicable everywhere period. This
> implies that many Hindu and Buddhist saints and Teachers
> were wrong about karma being eliminated (Buddha taught
> that nirvana eliminates suffering, not karma). I don't see
> much point to evolution unless its goal is to free us from
> karma.

I don't see much point to evolution. I am not even sure that such a
thing is anything other than another postulate.  As for "karma" well, as
I have been know to say before, karma = "There ain't no such thing as a
free lunch."  Simple, obvious, and no need to add nirvana.
>
> Freedom from karma implies action without cause or
> effect, a concept that is paradoxical at best. However,
> logically we can say that karma as causation requires
> time and divinity=paranirvana is outside of time and so
> is outside of karma.  While being perfectly logical,
> it is not at all clear to the human mind what this means.
>
My own experience suggests that our "true" being also lies outside of
time, or better, has no need of it.  If this experience could be
confirmed, then karma/causation (whatever) doesn't mean anything except
in our perception of time.  But time is nothing more than a measurement
of movement in space, which is fine, except we don't really have the
faintest idea what "space" really is, only theories about it.

We can't eat theories, we can't breathe theories, we can't live
theories.  Taking up Randy's points (to a degree) we *can* eat life,
breathe life, live life.  There's a lot of it about.

Alan :-)