Re: Repulsion - This is getting worse, not better

2004-6-28 13:34:00

JJ:

At least you are looking into the topic trying to figure it out. Actually, you can't study DK [Djwhal Khul] as you would a physics book for even he admits that he rarely teaches through a direct transmission of data. He states that he teaches from the universal to the particular. A physics book teaches from the particular to the universal.

The first step in understanding this or other apparent contradictions in his writings is to seek to understand the principles involved and then in your own mind piece them together into a working whole. When this is done true contradiction will rarely appear.

Therefore, the first problem we must solve is what is the principle behind the Law of Repulsion?

John C writes:

Maybe my problem is that I am actually trying to make sense of this, but as I dug deeper, I got even more confused. My head hurts.

"Both these divisions will be seen later as existing on every plane in the system and as having their origin in electrical force which shows itself differently on each plane but acts on all under three laws: Attraction or Repulsion, Economy, and Synthesis. The lower three planes or subplanes act under the Law of Economy primarily; the plane of meeting or of union acts under a phase of the Law of Attraction. Paralleling them, of course, during evolution are their opposites, showing as Dispersion, Repulsion, and Differentiation."
 (Treatise On Cosmic Fire, by Alice A. Bailey)

So, if we have the three cosmic laws as:
Synthesis
Attraction or Repulsion
Economy

Then under Economy we have:
Vibration
Adaptation
Repulsion
Friction

Problems:

1. We have the Law of Attraction or Repulsion (alternatively called the Law of Attraction AND Repulsion) which is a part of cosmic laws, and we also have ANOTHER law which is called simply the Law of Repulsion. I suppose we have to consider them separate laws, as stated in my previous post.

2. Which is it "Attraction OR Repulsion" or "Attraction AND repulsion"? If it's a law, doesn't it have just one name, and shouldn't that name be consistently used? If I ordered an ice cream cone and I said "I want chocolate or vanilla" Then when the cone came I said "No. I wanted chocolate and vanilla". The clerk would think I was crazy.

3. DK, in the above quote, mentions Attraction (yet a third name), Economy, and Synthesis, then he speaks of PARALLEL laws which work in the opposite direction, showing up as: Dispersion, Repulsion, and Differentiation. Giving us these polarities

Attraction - Dispersion
Economy - Repulsion
Synthesis - Differentiation

If these laws are parallel, in what way are they parallel? Are they opposites, working on the same level, or opposites working on a lower level of manifestation? I wish he would have explained this. The polarity with Economy - Repulsion is particularly giving me trouble. Which Repulsion is he talking about? If it the Repulsion which is subsidiary to Economy, then how can it be parallel?

If I were studying DK like a physics textbook (which I am, and maybe that is my mistake), I would expect the author to know his laws of physics and demonstrate that knowledge by setting forth the governing laws in a clear and consistent fashion.

Has anybody, ever, besides me tried to actually apply this knowledge? I realize that the physical universe is a hall of mirrors and a maze of illusion, but what I am looking for is something to help me find the way out, not lead me deeper in.