[Drifter]

The Relation of the Finite to the Infinite


Question: What is the relation between the infinite mind and the finite mind according to theosophy? The trouble is if you say the finite mind is a part of the infinite mind, you must also ascribe to the infinite mind the vices of the finite. But if you say it is not a part of the infinite mind, then the infinite cannot be infinite.
Answer: The gentleman has asked a question which has been debated in all ages, among all races of men. It is the same problem which has vexed and harassed theologians, for it is obvious from the standpoint of theology, if God is infinite, and is nevertheless a creator, then everything that infinity creates must be infinite; but we see ourselves surrounded by an infinitude of finite things. How comes this? This is the same problem in theology that you, my dear sir, have spoken of as existing in philosophy. Now I don't know anything that can answer this question except the god-wisdom which today we call theosophy, and you will understand it is not so easy to answer, because one must be trained in esoteric thought before complete conviction comes of the full adequacy of the answer. Yet I will try to state the facts in simple language.

I have always looked upon the idea that the infinite is an actor as utterly wrong, for infinitude cannot be an actor, because an actor is a limited entity. Infinitude does not act as a being, for a being is a limited entity. We can only say therefore that infinity is action per se, life per se, not a life -- that is limitation, that is finity. You take me as a man, you as a man, a celestial body like the sun or a planet or a beast, a plant, any limited entity: this limited entity, a finite being, in its physical expression lives and moves and has its existence in infinitude; it cannot be outside of it because infinitude has no frontiers, no boundaries, and no beyond. Therefore, that finite entity somewhere, somehow, in some part of it, has roots in infinity, infinity washes it through, so to speak, as the sea washes through all that its waves encompass, although of course infinity is a frontierless sea, so to speak.
Thus I, as a man, have my roots in the divine, that divine surrounds me everywhere, and permeates me throughout, in all my parts, in all my being. I cannot ever leave it. Therefore am I a child of it. Yet here am I, a man, in a weak, small, limited, physical body, with a weak, small, physical, limited brain as compared with the gods, a weak, small life, with a heart as we say, an ethical instinct, and whatnot. Yet I am a man. I have divine thoughts, I feel my unity with all that is. How? Why? That is the problem.

I will now hint at what esoteric theosophy says on this point. There is an infinity of finites, a strange paradox. In other words, these entities or beings which we call finite are infinite in number. I wonder if you catch that point. Thus the atoms of boundless space are bound by no frontiers, each one is a finite entity, and yet they exist in infinite numbers. We can conceive of no end because if our thought once says, there infinity ends, this is a limitation of the infinitude which has produced finites here, and we say, with perfect justice, why should, how could, infinity limit itself in any way? This thought is repellent, we cannot accept it. It is the infinite whispering of infinitude within me which enables my consciousness to catch this thread of understanding; this limited brain finds difficulty in holding within its small bounds an infinite idea. But I get an intuition, something within whispers, that is so. That is the infinitude breathing through me, washing through me.

Thus, there is an infinitude of finite entities, gathered together in distinct aggregated masses, whatever they may be -- men, planets, suns, stars, stones, or whatnot -- call them atoms, because all these things are formed of atoms, or things smaller than atoms like electrons and protons, etc. Indeed, all cosmic phenomena in the great or in the small follow the same general cosmic rule or pattern; and these are the phenomena of the universe as contrasted with the hid noumena or secret causes.

We see thus that Occidental philosophy has made a capital error in its philosophical researches in saying that infinity is around us, but that the finite is radically or essentially different from it. Strange paradox! Just because the finities are limitless, infinite numerically, therefore collectively as an infinitude they are a part of infinitude -- indeed, in a sense the garments of infinity. They are it. In other words, we must change our out look on the universe before we can understand why the infinite breathes in time as it does, in what we humans call boundless space. There is a manner in which even a human thought is infinite because it is one of an infinite number of thoughts, energies, living in the heart of nature, and never able to leave infinitude.

[Drifter]

If you catch this very subtle, difficult thought, you will have precisely what the esoteric philosophy teaches, as also, for instance, the Vedanta, the Adwaita-Vedanta of India. What does it, as well as the sage of the Vedas, teach its disciples? This: Tat twam asi: "That -- the Boundless -- thou art." Because if That, thou, are different, then the thou is outside infinity, which is absurd, and infinity immediately becomes finite because there is something beyond it, which means that it is bounded, therefore limited, therefore noninfinite. Therefore that limited entity, that finity in this wondrous way is washed through with infinity, because in its heart, in its essence, it is of the substance of infinity.
Now turning to theology, this is just the reason why theosophists cannot accept Christian theology, although we accept the teachings of the avatara Jesus. We look upon him as one of the greatest of theosophists; but the theology of Christianity was built up by smaller men later in time who had lost the secret of the teachings of their great master. And when Christian theology says that God is a creator, that "He" created the world out of nothing at a certain time in infinity, we say that is impossible, that limits "God. " Infinity is no creator, it is not a maker, not a demiurge -- to use the philosophical term demiourgos of the Greeks; just as the sage of the Vedas, as the Adwaita-Vedanta, of India and as the esoteric philosophy say, it is That. We give to it no concrete name, for such a name implies limitation. We simply say it is nameless, That. "That" is not a title, it is not a name; it is just an attempt of the human mind not to label infinity, or to give it a name, or to put a ticket on it, but just to use this term That as a means of reference in conversation.
And lastly, the esoteric philosophy teaches therefore, following these lines of subtle thinking, that even what we call the physical universe is infinite because composed of an infinite number of units, finities. And it is so from eternity -- never had a beginning, never will have an ending. Because infinity has no beginning, has no ending. Infinity does not create and produce these finities. Therefore they are always from infinite past to infinite future, and are parts of infinitude. Strange philosophical paradox. Marvelous intuitions of the archaic sages!

I sometimes think that while it is noble of us to investigate these recondite and difficult thoughts, because they raise us to higher levels of thinking and enlarge our minds, I must agree with the ancient sage who said that the answer, the most real answer to such problems is found in the silence. How true that is! It is words that mislead us, words which entangle us and lead our thoughts astray. Yet we must use words to communicate with each other. If this gentleman is a professor or teacher in one of the universities I sympathize with him, because I know the difficulty he has in giving thought so subtle sometimes to other minds. And yet he does so, teachers do so, because they know there is something in the learners, in the pupils, which can grasp at least an intuition of Reality.
I sometimes think that Western philosophy has lived under great disadvantages. It has suffered under a heavy handicap, and it is this, that Western philosophical thought has not had a real opportunity to develop and free itself from theological dogmatism. I know this perhaps is a ticklish subject to touch upon, yet it is one of outstanding importance for the freedom of human thought. Philosophy in the Orient has not been laboring for thousands of years under this handicap. The thoughts of Oriental philosophers and of the archaic Mystery Schools have had the freedom to grow and to develop; and I will now show you just what I mean.

In the esoteric wisdom, as likewise in the philosophical and religious thought of the Orient -- a direct descendant and child of occultism, of theosophy -- the Infinite or Boundless or That is not good, nor is it bad. These are human limitations, and can apply only by contrasts to limited beings. It is a man or an angel or a god or a deva who is good or bad. A spirit of good and a spirit of evil? This is a blind intuition which Christian theology has had. What actually is, is that in the bosom of infinity, out of it as from an eternal womb, come pouring forth hierarchies of lives, of monads as Leibniz would say, all spiritual beings in various grades and degrees of what we today call evolutionary unfoldment. Thus, for instance, we have the highest of the highest of the highest gods, and beneath them the highest of the highest, and beneath them the highest, and then the gods, and then the dhyani-chohans, and then beings below them, until we reach us humans, and then beings below us on other ranges of hierarchies of entities, like the beasts and the plants and the elementals, all marching upward on their evolutionary way, higher and higher. Indeed, it is in this world in which we live that we find good and evil, and we see how beautiful good is, for it is harmony and love and peace and progress and development, evolution, expanding, and growth. We likewise see what evil is, restriction, constriction, suffering, pain, inadequacies, ignorance; in other words, imperfection in development often involving retrogressions or going downwards towards larger imperfections, until the lesson is learned by habit, and the entity begins the upward march. This is what the evil man does. He is going downwards and backwards for the time being, for the duration of his evil doing. So it is in the manifested things of the universe that we find beauteous good and the best, and horrid evil and the worst.

This entire series of thoughts involving the productions of the hosts of hierarchies of finite beings and things was called in ancient philosophy the doctrine of emanations, which Christian theology has condemned and scorned and mocked at, and which Western philosophy has never had a chance to understand because its teachers have been crippled. They have not been truly free, for they have not had the chance that the philosophers of the Orient have. I know. I have been through it.

So we cannot say that the infinite is good, because that is a limited term belonging solely to beings of emanated hierarchies; and when in the lower grades of these, we find them with less of the divine light. Then, as the Gnostics said -- one school of ancient philosophy in early Christian times -- they live in darkness, they are limited, they cannot see clearly, and that is evil, what we call evil, limitation.

So it is all wrong to talk about infinitude as being good, because if infinitude is good, how are we going to explain evil in the world? And there is lots of it! No, good and evil belong to the vast range of hierarchies existing in infinity, coming forth into manifestation in one great life-wave in some part of the universe, living their times, advancing and progressing; and when they have reached the culmination or highest point of their growth in that time period, then returning into the bosom of the divine for rest, at some future time to come forth again on higher planes, in loftier spheres. A process that we see in nature all around us, like the tree coming forth in the spring, bringing forth its leaves and shedding them in the autumn; just as we see a human being for instance, reimbody, part in the divine world and part in the physical, life after life, back and forth along the swing of the pendulum which is nature's law. We see it around us. There is the great book which we should study: nature, the things that are. And when I say nature, I don't mean physical nature alone, but all nature in the esoteric sense, the nature of the divine, the nature of the spiritual, the nature of the intellectual worlds, the nature of the physical worlds, the nature of the worlds beneath the physical. Who can, who dare, set bounds to the life in infinity and of it?
The gist of the answer to the question asked is, therefore, the following: every unit of the limitless number of finite beings, or of things living in and of infinitude, every such unit, I say, is in its highest, in its essence or fundamental substance, an identity with the substance of infinitude; but these points of infinite substance or monadic centers in their several expressions as cosmic phenomena are, or become, or appear, or show themselves forth as, the finite units spoken of in the question. Thus, every unit is in its essential substance of the very stuff of infinity, but all in their manifestations or emanated expressions are, or become, the discrete or "separated" units in their countless armies or hierarchies.

[SB_UK]

who'd be a lavatory attendant in a field of toilets stretching for as far as the eyes can see?

[Drifter]

So doth the loftiness of the intellectual world speak of it self.

[SB_UK]

What is the Root of all evil?

I am.

-*-

please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters

uhuhuhuh
please
learn the beauty of brevity automaton brain -

you only wanted 5 characters from me before -
- all of like 2 days ago
in smeggin' fact !

what're you playing at???

some people will not be able to keep up -
~ for instance ~
this -> 'lol!!!' <- person

who posts the same message
over and over and over again
(most women incidentally)
the Internet

yes fairer
yes dumber
yes pretty
yes talk

~yes~

pretty talkative - impressively so actually
- for the fairly dumb

to keep up - ~ for instance ~ this -> 'lol!!!'

It makes men Wonder lol!!! woman

she collapses at 6 characters

- for the woman who lolls
- this is criminal behaviour -!-

lol!

though her problem - incapacity to express herself

• clearly
• succinctly
• logically

10 characters may
nay!
is not possible for any female !

lol!!! lol!!!

hmmm... ... ...

... ... but that's not what we like them for
now is it ?

hey -!-
no - yeah - yeah - the other -
no - bobble bobble -

- is it fellas?

am I right?
or
am I bi dextrous?

A forum ---without--- any character
and you demand 10 characters from each and every {post,poster} - whilst
-> you guys <-

double standards

hypocrites -
and especially so

(a) the green troll one who hasn't worked since his mind died
(b) the aging beardy Nether Regions one
(c) the rabid one (see above)
who preaches love by mixing and matching words from the great sages into an order which defines her own condition as a sad and lonely spinster trying to spice up her chicken korma by imagining herself as the great Greta Garbo getting her great sage and onion stuffed - (some say - she was the last of the Dinosaurs) of the silver screen -
and why else?
(asking you guys here to think
- for just the once)

... ... and why else would I be gazing at this strange forum skin ???

man!
URLs orange !!!

a search for everything with the acronym ToE -
it should really be more
hoah!!!

thinking -
WhoA

bet the skin's called something like Argentinium supercilious Caecilius too - knowing your sort ... ... have known your sort only too well

... I know your sort.

You are characterless, renegade hypocrites, travelling from forum to forum like locusts -
sucking people off - with your selfish groinal aspirations

aren't you -?-

are you not ?

that's (one two three fou... ..(approximately)
all of you -

huh?

I have spoken.

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by Drifter So doth the loftiness of the intellectual world speak of it self.

Originally Posted by lavatory assistant full of sound and fury

rumble

in the bumbles
in the jungle
in the bush
in the brown field sites where the aroma from WCs pervade the night air.

Woodstock II
- RELIEVE THE STRAIN.

[Drifter]

Mental diarrhea, psycho-drivel.

Stool Pidgeon diatribe.

Originally Posted by SB_UK rumble in the bumbles in the jungle in the bush in the brown field sites where the aroma from WCs pervade the night air. Woodstock II - RELIEVE THE STRAIN.

[Drifter]

Namaste`, Oh Toothless-Wonder.

A.D.D plays you like a finely tuned instrument.

Originally Posted by SB_UK I am. -*- uhuhuhuh please learn the beauty of brevity automaton brain - you only wanted 5 characters from me before - - all of like 2 days ago in smeggin' fact ! what're you playing at??? some people will not be able to keep up - ~ for instance ~ this -> 'lol!!!' <- person who posts the same message over and over and over again (most women incidentally) the Internet yes fairer yes dumber yes pretty yes talk ~yes~ pretty talkative - impressively so actually - for the fairly dumb It makes men Wonder lol!!! woman she collapses at 6 characters - for the woman who lolls - this is criminal behaviour -!- though her problem - incapacity to express herself clearly succinctly logically 10 characters may nay! is not possible for any female ! hmmm... ... ... ... ... but that's not what we like them for now is it ? hey -!- no - yeah - yeah - the other - no - bobble bobble - - is it fellas? am I right? or am I bi dextrous? A forum ---without--- any character and you demand 10 characters from each and every {post,poster} - whilst -> you guys <- double standards hypocrites - and especially so (a) the green troll one who hasn't worked since his mind died (b) the aging beardy Nether Regions one (c) the rabid one (see above) who preaches love by mixing and matching words from the great sages into an order which defines her own condition as a sad and lonely spinster trying to spice up her chicken korma by imagining herself as the great Greta Garbo getting her great sage and onion stuffed - (some say - she was the last of the Dinosaurs) of the silver screen - and why else? (asking you guys here to think - for just the once) ... ... and why else would I be gazing at this strange forum skin ??? man! URLs orange !!! a search for everything with the acronym ToE - it should really be more hoah!!! thinking - WhoA bet the skin's called something like Argentinium supercilious Caecilius too - knowing your sort ... ... have known your sort only too well ... I know your sort. You are characterless, renegade hypocrites, travelling from forum to forum like locusts - sucking people off - with your selfish groinal aspirations aren't you -?- are you not ? that's (one two three fou... ..(approximately) all of you - huh? I have spoken.

[Drifter]

Mis identification lies in the "Wrong I". ~Ramana Maharshi

Where your coming from . . . 'The Ritilin Truck' Obviously Does Not Deliver.

What is the root of all evil?

Originally Posted by SB_UK I am. -*- huh? I have spoken.

[futrethink]

SB_UK.

What is the Root of all evil? I am.

---Yes, you are.
---As am I and Mother Theresa and a Tibetan monk and the coach of a little league team.
---As is a hole in a road and a tree limb and a dog and a mountain and a gust of wind.
---At the most basic level of perception ‘interaction’ 693 and 694(a relatively short {compared to Drifters lengthy orations/lectures} 2 part explanation) is the root cause of evil.
---At the level of discussion, for this thread, ‘love’ is the cause of evil.

evil is bad

---Evil is subjective, at one level. Tell me SB_UK (to repeat myself to another) is there anyone or anything in reality that would consider the epitome of Goodness, that being ‘God’ to be evil?

there is no such thing as an objective bad - only subjective bad

---http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
---According to those definitions of the word ‘objective’,