Balance and perfection.

[Iamit]

If there is a resonance with the idea All is One. it can be challenging to include suffering as Oneness manifest. One can see why it is the inclusion of all as perfect just as it is that brings peace, despite that challenge of including suffering, and ends the conflict that arises if suffering is excluded.

Attempts are made to make sense of including suffering by referring to balance on the infinate scale which may not be apparent 'locally' and that the totality of events involved in that balance are not known and yet the principle accepted.

The way the idea of that balance is described is that it is always that balance that descides what happens. So it is never why are things as a are but this is how it must be for that balance to be maintained on the scale of the totality of the manifestation which is implied to be infinate. Its a mechanism that happens automatically and is always perfect otherwise there would be no manifestation at all.

Thats the theory anyway:) I first heard it described by Tony Parsons at one of his meetings in London. I've not followed it up by any reading but suspect it might be a very old idea.

Does anyone know of its source or origin?

[iamthat]

Suffering is often associated with karma which many people consider in terms of reward (pleasure) or punishment (suffering). Esoteric astrology considers karma more as a balancing mechanism, which is why karma is governed by the sign of Libra, the balancing scales.

So people struggle with the idea of suffering in a Divine creation. If there is a God why would He/She/It allow such suffering as we see on a planetary scale? Esoterically the earth is considered as a planet of learning through suffering. It is all a process of moving towards a state of harmonious balance. We are not there yet, so people suffer in various ways.

Eventually humanity will find that balance and learn to live in harmony with each other and with Nature. In the meantime each one of us can only find our own inner harmony and balance. If we are not living harmoniously then we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Peace.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Suffering is often associated with karma which many people consider in terms of reward (pleasure) or punishment (suffering). Esoteric astrology considers karma more as a balancing mechanism, which is why karma is governed by the sign of Libra, the balancing scales.

So people struggle with the idea of suffering in a Divine creation. If there is a God why would He/She/It allow such suffering as we see on a planetary scale? Esoterically the earth is considered as a planet of learning through suffering. It is all a process of moving towards a state of harmonious balance. We are not there yet, so people suffer in various ways.

Eventually humanity will find that balance and learn to live in harmony with each other and with Nature. In the meantime each one of us can only find our own inner harmony and balance. If we are not living harmoniously then we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Peace.

I relate to the nature of balance, more than karma. We are connected to the earth and the universe in everyway so the interconnected balance filters through the whole infinitely.

Understanding your own true nature and harmony will naturally filter through the whole as required as you being that, so it does pay to work on your own balance first bringing that harmony into yourself.

When you build this balance the soul awakens the path of interconnected relationships that forge you into a greater balance of shared harmony, more naturally as you being what you are..

[Iamit]

If suffering is not included as the divine manifest there is the conflict posed by the question "Why does the all powerful, all knowing divine allow suffering rather than creating a manifestation without suffering"? To say that it is to allow free will or suchlike simply means the question moves on to "Why did the divine allow free will?". Wherever the question is moved to, it cannot be avoided that an all powerful all knowing creator is responsible for suffering. The only way that suffering can be seen as positive is that, if it arises, it must be in oder to maintain balance on the infinate scale without which there would be no maifestation at all.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Iamit

If suffering is not included as the divine manifest there is the conflict posed by the question "Why does the all powerful, all knowing divine allow suffering rather than creating a manifestation without suffering"? To say that it is to allow free will or suchlike simply means the question moves on to "Why did the divine allow free will?". Wherever the question is moved to, it cannot be avoided that an all powerful all knowing creator is responsible for suffering. The only way that suffering can be seen as positive is that, if it arises, it must be in oder to maintain balance on the infinate scale without which there would be no maifestation at all.

I would add to that by saying that the creator would not therefore be all powerful if such an automatic balancing system is required for there to be any manifestation at all, because he,she,it could simply dispense with it. But if there is no creator and just the balancing system intrinsic to the manifestation, then the question does not arise.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Iamit

The only way that suffering can be seen as positive is that, if it arises, it must be in oder to maintain balance on the infinate scale without which there would be no maifestation at all.

I wouldn't say that is the 'only' way it can be seen as positive.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

I wouldn't say that is the 'only' way it can be seen as positive.

Ok elaborate. Are you thinking about The Chinese Farmer parable? If so that resonates for me and keep it pinned up in the kitchen next to the kettle in case I need to remember it, which in my life I often do:)

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Ok elaborate. Are you thinking about The Chinese Farmer parable? If so that resonates for me and keep it pinned up in the kitchen next to the kettle in case I need to remember it, which in my life I often do:)

I think when i wrote the last I had just come off reading a post somewhere else on this forum where they were saying some eastern masters (at least) thought that the earth play was very negative and dense. And then we know that some people have supposedly done 'miracle's. The most obvious being Christ but there are other things in the literature. Anyway, if the earth plane is negative and dense and if you can actually perform miracles, a thought might be that to actually do it you would want to 'resonate' with the earth plane. That would mean, you become very negative and dense. So what I've said is if you want to do something 'positive' (miracles) you might have to delve into negativity, and if that was the case negativity would be used for a positive purpose, e.g. it would have a positive use and thus be seen as a positive thing.

but really what I just said is it doesn't depend on 'negativity' being negative or 'positivity' being positive - it depends more on which spin you want to put on things when you are doing the explaining.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

I think when i wrote the last I had just come off reading a post somewhere else on this forum where they were saying some eastern masters (at least) thought that the earth play was very negative and dense. And then we know that some people have supposedly done 'miracle's. The most obvious being Christ but there are other things in the literature. Anyway, if the earth plane is negative and dense and if you can actually perform miracles, a thought might be that to actually do it you would want to 'resonate' with the earth plane. That would mean, you become very negative and dense. So what I've said is if you want to do something 'positive' (miracles) you might have to delve into negativity, and if that was the case negativity would be used for a positive purpose, e.g. it would have a positive use and thus be seen as a positive thing.

but really what I just said is it doesn't depend on 'negativity' being negative or 'positivity' being positive - it depends more on which spin you want to put on things when you are doing the explaining.

Ok understood, thanks

[spiritualll]

Suffering does not add to the balance of this world. It brings disharmony, hatred, fear, etc. If you think that it's balance, then why there is the concept of heaven, a place with no suffering? Even in buddhism, one strives for nirvana, which is eternal and does not need suffering.

Honestly, the question of suffering amazes me.

I don't think that suffering adds to the balance of the universe.

I have studied a lot the concept of evil and I still have no answer why evil exists in the universe. There are many theories but none brings enough light to the question.