Theos-Talk Archives (February 2000 Message tt00008)

In a message dated 11/26/99 8:31:41 PM, dalval@nwc.net writes:

>Nov 26TH
>
>Dear Leon.
>
>I thank you for sharing the material that you have in your two posts.
>
>It is most interesting and also it reveals that some of the
>analysis is apparently very advanced in terms of such detail.  I
>notice that those who have considered cognition, receptivity of
>ideas, and the generating of concepts have developed a technical
>vocabulary that one would have to learn carefully before being
>able to discuss at parity with them in their vocabulary.

Yes, scientists think about the nature of reality in reductive, analytic 
terms--examining the particulars to explain the generality.  Therefore, they 
cannot base their thinking on unproved fundamental truths or first 
principles--and thus, resort to labeling the physical properties of the 
things they speak of with technical jargon.  Unfortunately, while this is 
fine when dealing with material things that can be codified and measured, it 
does not work with intangible ideas like consciousness and our inner world of 
mind and memory, which are entirely subjective.  

However, in theosophy we do have an extensive technical language, given us by 
HPB, that describes these subjective worlds.  Fortunately, she also described 
them with reference to the scientific jargon of her day.  Unfortunately, 
however, she used words for the similar things or concept, like "planes," 
when speaking two dimensionally of multidimensional ("coadunate but not 
consubstantial") "fields" of energy that have entirely different meanings to 
reductive scientists today. They see and study only the lowest fields of 
matter.  But, "planes," from a theosophical point of view, are valid 
descriptions of the levels of unified consciousness at the interfaces or 
crossovers of energy between the 7 fold fields of our inner being which 
corresponds and are analogous to the inner nature of the cosmos itself.  
Science has yet to realize this.

As for learning a new language when speaking to scientists... It is 
unnecessary... So long as we use the terms for these fields and their 
interfaces that science can understand.  e.g., The word "quanta" used by 
science refers to any fundamental particle-wave (photon, astron, menton, 
viton, etc.) no matter on what plane or field it manifests on.  Therefore 
scientists, some of whom have arrived at an understanding of intangible 
energies emanating from the ubiquitous zero-point (i,e., laya points of 
primal space) can understand me when I speak of Astro-biological coenergetic 
fields and the universal cyclic principles that govern them (that are 
analogous to the 7-fold fields and their intersecting planes spoken of in 
theosophical terms).  This is what HPB meant, in part, by her advice to 
"teach theosophy (karma and reincarnation, fundamental principles, etc.) to 
ordinary people, as well as scientists, in the language of (this) age."  

When scientists (as the "gurus" of this age) understand the connections 
between the science of theosophy and the material science that they already 
have explored to its ultimate limit, they will verify the validity of the 
fundamental truths (cosmic origin, cycles, karma and reincarnation, 
evolutionary purpose and the means to influence the inner fields, and be 
influenced by them, without interfering with individual and group karma, 
etc.) in the modern "language of the age" that the ordinary people (whom we 
must reach before the inevitable collapse of this world) can accept   This, 
will change their modes of thinking, and help induce them to act on the basis 
of such new ideas for the benefit of the all encompassing universal Self, 
rather than for the benefit of their lower, animal natures.

>Theosophy, however, to my way of understanding is written for the
>common man to grasp -- the one who is most likely to actually use
>the mind, thoughts, ideas and concepts without going through the
>analytical process that a professor might use.

>There has to be a bridge between the two.

Yes, but remember that the SD is the "Synthesis of Science, Religion, and 
philosophy"... And, therefore, is written for everyone (including scientists) 
to grasp. Vide Einstein's grasp of fundamental principles that led him, 
through his study of the SD, to the theory of relativity and the 
understanding that energy and mass are interchangeable, and all "things," 
relative.  However, the professors are trained to put aside their prejudices 
and opinions and examine (as well as teach) only the physically observed or 
experimentally determinable facts.  This is necessary for their (and our) 
understanding of the physical world -- in a manner which is closest to our 
ordinary perceptions.  But, since they cannot put aside their rational minds, 
they can also be influenced to change both their points of view and their 
minds -- whenever new information appears, which, by rigid deductive logic 
based on sound principles, can be shown to be irrefutable.  That is how 
theosophy can reach into and conjoin with the world of science.  But, its a 
difficult job -- since not only do their individual points of view differ 
from ours, as well as between themselves, but they speak separate languages 
in each major or minor branch of science.  (ref: the languages or jargons of 
physics, cosmology, biology, chemistry, physiology, neurology, biology, 
psychology, economics, paleontology, etc.)  The one thing they have in 
common, though, is the "scientific method" and reductive processes of 
objective observation, experimentation, and logical induction.  This is, in 
one sense, in direct contradiction of the theosophical method of logical 
deduction based on first or fundamental principles that can be verified 
solely by subjective experience, meditative concentration, and 
introspection...  Something, science cannot accept.  

Apropos, one of our major problems, and the basis of my own work, is to try 
to convince scientists to accept subjective experiences as objective 
knowledge -- as theosophists accept the accumulated wisdom and consistent 
teachings of the countless Adepts who have meticulously, examined, 
subjectively, all aspects of the inner and outer worlds (the seven fold 
coenergetic fields spoken of in ABC theory, in parallel with the 7 fold 
nature of the universe that theosophy speaks of) and their interfaces and 
interactions since earliest times... And, have come to their consensus by 
comparing their experiences, one with the other, and offering as "truth" only 
those conclusions that are mutually and consistently experienced by all of 
them, or can be logically deduced from such experiences.  In a Universe that 
is both subjectively metaphysical (consciousness, mind, memory, will, 
awareness, etc.) as well as objectively physical (brain, organs, body, world, 
cosmos, etc.) -- how else are we to understand the true nature and common 
origin, as well as the scientific and also transcendental interface (or 
"bridge") between these dual aspects of a fundamentally triune universe?

The reason why it has now become so important to reach the scientific minded 
(i.e., logical materialists) is that scientists are the present "gurus" of 
this age whom the great majority of "common men" follow as their "mentors" 
and as arbiters of ultimate truth.  Therefore, to change the minds of these 
half-blind *followers* -- who have accepted the "established" materialistic 
and reductive ways of objective analysis, based on the "scientific method" as 
the *only* way to obtain knowledge of the workings of the universe, as well 
as of our outer and inner physical and mental worlds -- we must first open 
and change the mind of their gurus in the "language of this age" (while we 
continue to teach theosophy as HPB presented it, to those "searchers" capable 
of understanding it in the language of theosophy).  But for those who follow 
the gurus of science, it's not a new language we need -- but, a modification 
of the English language, that synthesizes the language of science with the 
language of theosophy and the common language of the people.  One way this 
can be done, directly, is by merging the languages of interdisciplinary 
science with the languages of interdisciplinary theosophy.  "Interdisciplinary
," referring to those "gurus" who specialize in separate branches of either 
science (e.g., physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, paleontology, 
archeology, economics, etc., etc.), or theosophy (e.g., Rajah Yoga, Gnana 
Yoga, Hatha Yoga, Kriya Yoga, Bakti Yoga, etc., etc.)  

Another, and far better way to reach the ordinary people, however, is to use 
the common language of mass entertainment (movies and television) to 
"picture" the synthesis of both science and theosophy, and bring the 
resultant merged truth of both universal origins and its operations extending 
from consciousness to matter, directly into their minds eye.  For most 
people, simply "preaching" the good life and the eternal ethics and morality, 
as well as the practice of brotherhood, does no good at all without first 
teaching them the rationale behind the fundamental laws that convinces them 
of the origins and immutability of karma and reincarnation, and makes them 
aware that, together, their psychic powers coupled with an understanding of 
the fundamental laws of nature, are powerful tools that can work wonders in 
restoring the world to its original pristine harmony for the benefit of all. 

My ABC theory is an intellectual as well as graphical attempt to bridge that 
gap of misperception that keeps subjective spiritual (consciousness) science 
(as taught to us through theosophy) from merging with material (mass-energy) 
science as taught to us by a long process of examining the particulars 
through use of the "scientific method" -- which has led us to this amazing 
new high technology of the Internet, and worldwide instantaneous 
communication.  Unfortunately, what we have gained in communication 
potential, has been at the sacrifice of our overall ecological and physical 
health.  But, that price has already been paid, and it behooves us now to 
turn the tide before the final crunch might leave us with none left to hear 
our messages of hope.
>
>The word gestalt seem to be used as one would who views a whole
>picture, regardless of the way in which it is built up.  I seem
>to gather the concept that in describing ideas and their
>reception, comparison, and the response thereto, have been
>compared largely to comparative details found in photography or
>printing, and the way in which the eye can be deceived by those
>processes into seeing colors and shapes that are not actually
>there, in other words their representatives or "shadows" of
>reality.
>
>But why conclude that the processes used in our physical world of
>color and shape are entirely comparable to the subjective
>processes of idea perception, formation or conveyance?
>What if a totally different process were used in a medium of
>which we have as yet no exact perception, but, whose translated
>effects we form our basis of experience here, can be reduced to
>the analogy just mentioned.
>
>Would this not be carrying the analogy too far?

Not really.  We don't assume that these process are "entirely comparable" -- 
only analogically so.  Also, the process of communication of image information
 (sound, pictures, etc.) used by us on the material plane depends on the 
vibrational wave patterns set up in electromagnetic fields (radio waves, 
light images, etc.) that are analogous to the transfer of sound through 
atmospheric fields, etc.  Why would nature pass it's information in, on, or 
between the various planes or fields of being, other that by reliance on the 
wave (cyclic) nature of all fields, no matter whether they are 
physical-material or astral-semimaterial--all the way up to the successively 
more tenuous fields of mind (manas), memory (akasha) and intuitive spiritual 
consciousness (Buddhi).  These are all interdependent "fields" -- all 
originating from one source, and carrying image information in the form of 
cyclic wave interference patterns--like the interference patterns in a 
material hologram that can be resolved into a visible and apparently "real" 
3-D object hanging in thin air.  As Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice" -- 
indicating that all of nature works by analogy and correspondence, and it 
always chooses the most parsimonious solution.  Why, then, would 
communication of "images" between our inner fields (all of which obey the 2nd 
fundamental principle's laws of periodicity and cycles) operate any 
differently than the communication of information between our "physical" 
fields which obey the same laws?  Seeing all actions on any level as one 
fundamental action principle that reflect themselves, simultaneously, in 
every coadunate field linked through their zero-points of origin -- is what 
is meant by a "gestalt," or "holistic" view of the universe in general, as 
well as in particular.  Any action leading to an experience, a thought, or a 
memory is instantly reflected into the highest and most subtle, near infinite 
frequency, universal field (Akasha) and stored there indefinitely, if not 
eternally -- depending on the level of applied energy.or force.  No pattern 
of vibrational change in any coenergetic field of action is ever lost.  
Understanding this, is the first step in understanding how karma actually 
works.
>
>As an example I cast a fleeting glance at the SUN.  I do that
>because previous experience shows I can burn my retina and cause
>a loss of future perception there where that bright image is for
>a moment focused.  But with this fleeting look I not only see the
>orange white color, but there is as an after-image a blue color
>that shows up.  How to account for that?  The effect can be
>analyzed, the occurrence is not explained thereby.  The event is
>recorded but not explained except by using an analogy we are
>familiar with.  The names do not explain.  But they give us a
>"talking point."

The residual blue color is accounted for by the harmonic frequencies of light 
that are generated whenever a particular fundamental color frequency is 
perceived (similar to the various harmonic overtones that occur when a 
fundamental note is struck on a musical instrument).  When the primary note 
or frequency is stopped suddenly, what remains is a final complementary 
harmonic frequency which, in the case of a light image, is the faint overtone 
remaining and affecting the slower decaying field of our sensory neurons, 
which are then perceived as the complementary color--until that, too, fades 
away into blackness, or no color.  This slow rise and decay of neurological 
fields, explains the persistence of image that enables us to see a sequential 
projection of single moving picture frames as a continuous illusion of 
overlapping motion without apparent flicker.  

Yes, names do not explain anything.  But, nevertheless, we must name the 
things we talk about so that everyone understand what it is that we are 
referring to when we try to explain their individual natures as well as their 
interrelationships.  That's another reason why we need to synthesize the two 
languages of science and theosophy... So that we all understand that we are 
talking of the same things, as well as the similar processes that govern 
their actions and interactions.  For example, theosophy speaks of Manas as a 
separate "principle" and explains it's nature in terms of its processes 
(thinking, reasoning, imagining, recall, recollection, etc.) as well as its 
relationship to all our other inner fields, and its origin and evolution out 
of the primal source or absolute in conjunction with all the other 
"principles."  While science speaks of the same thing and calls it "mind" -- 
but cannot separate it from the physical processes of the brain.  Thus, to 
them, consciousness is considered an epiphenomena of the brain's neural 
systems, and not as a primary aspect of our seven fold nature based on the 
fundamental principles, as postulated by theosophy.  If they both could 
accept its nature as a field that follows the laws of cycles, and is part of 
the zero-point energy fields that are independent of, although interdependent 
with the material fields, there would be no problem for either of them to 
understand how these non material and material fields can interact and 
transfer their information between them by inductive, harmonic and resonant 
frequency transformational processes -- such as the striking of a low note on 
a bass fiddle causes an adjacent violin to sound the same note in a different 
octave, as well as its overtones on adjacent strings, etc.  To get a basic 
idea of how these holographic field transformational processes work, you 
might read *Chase(?) the Wild Pendulum* by Itzak Bentoff, or *A New Science 
of Life* by Rupert Sheldrake -- both of which describe the fundamental 
holographic nature of the Universe as well as the action and interaction of 
its "morphogenetic fields".  They also compare these processes analogously 
with material processes such as holography, and the transmission of images 
over the "airwaves" -- and explain how these intangible vibrational images or 
interference patterns can interface with and effect physical processes and 
material objects like film holograms, TV picture tubes and electromagnetic 
loudspeaker systems -- and, someday, our own pranic or chi energies for 
purposes of healing. (Remember Doc McCoy's magic healing wand in Star Trek?:-)

Did we ever wonder how a conscious thought can activate and effect the motion 
of our physical body simply by the activation of our will?  The energy 
necessary for such action must come from the endless source of universal 
energy that is funneled through an invisible point that is between the 
objective and subjective worlds. And, this energy must be transferred in some 
manner to the neurological system.  Perhaps, as ABC postulates -- through a 
series of coenergetic fields that are intermediaries between our self 
awareness and our brain.  Therefore, couldn't that zero-point be considered 
also as the source of our one-pointed center of perceptive awareness which is 
phenomenally causative in its fundamental nature?  How can we operate from 
our point of subjectively, as creative beings, any different from the 
causative universal Self that guides the initial formations of its self 
generated universe?   Is not the initial field emanating out of the Absolute 
-- that separates into Perusha and Prakriti (consciousness-matter) and, in 
turn, evolves into Fohat and Mahat (electricity-thought), who together 
"create" the physical cosmos in the same manner that we create our outer 
world through our coenergetic fields of consciousness (mind, memory) -- 
empowered by the same force of Will originating from the same zero-point?  
Does not all these processes obey the same fundamental laws of periodicity or 
cycles, based on the principle of vibrational motion originating in initial 
SPIN (represented in theosophy by the empty circle outside of all manifested 
time and space)?  Does not this initial spin next evolve into a manifest 
spatial or one dimensional cycle (like a vibrating "string") that would 
necessary have a common point of location at its ends (representing its 
source of manifest energy or will)?  This is analogous to the stationary 
source of centrifugal force or energy in our hand as we spin a string 
tethered ball in a wide circle around our head.  Doesn't theosophy teach "as 
above, so below," and that everything in the universe can be explained by 
analogy and correspondence?  Today, the above concept has become the basis of 
the new scientific "Superstring" theory... So, we are making some progress, 
after all.  But only a very few scientists know this.  

In spite of all our ideas to the contrary, science, at its fringes, as HPB 
predicted, is getting closer and closer to an inevitable acceptance of 
theosophical principles.  However, In light of the negative effects rapidly 
overcoming the positive changes in our world going on today, and the 
inevitable catastrophic collapse of our entire world's ecological and 
economic balance looming on the horizon, these ideas are far too slow in 
reaching the mainstream of science, and through them, filtering down to the 
people.  Didn't it take almost thirty years before Einstein's theory of 
relativity was accepted almost universally?  And, today, there are even some 
respected scientists who deny it's validity in the face of some contradictory 
quantum theories that have come later.  But, hasn't this incomplete 
knowledge, however, fueled our blind rush toward high technological 
developments dependent on rapidly depleting energy resources, and reinforced 
by the materialistic thinking that drives the world to a frenzy of personal 
greed and indifference to the fate of others?  True religion based on 
fundamental principles could take up some of the slack, admittedly... But, 
where do we see this used as an effective means to counteract the 
overwhelming powers of materialism that are more and more rapidly driving the 
world toward it's ultimate catastrophic collapse and potential doom for the 
Human race -- not to mention the loss of the little bit of progress we've 
made in the last 12,000 years?  

>Now it is dark as I write and the SUN is behind a hill to the
>west, using my mind's eye I can cast up an image drawn from
>memory and place in and on that any variation my imagination
>might desire to picture.  Is it possible to say where memory
>ceases and fantasy begins?  Who and what are the processes by
>which fantasy operates to blur accurate memory?

Fantasies are the processes of thought or vibrations in the field of mind 
that are activated by our imagination (or self willed "modifications of the 
thinking principle") that have no basis in objective reality.  Naturally, 
these wave patterns of imaginary images when brought up to mind interfere 
with the analogous sensory image wave patterns in our less willfully 
malleable (but still changeable) memory field.  Therefore, these fields, 
which have a two way action-reaction path between them, tend to modify and 
blur each other as we observe them from our coadunate static zero-point 
center of perceptive awareness (which looks at both fields simultaneously).  
Thus, the accuracy of our memory would have a tendency to become compromised 
by our fantasies, or as Buddha might say, "wrong" thoughts.    
>
>I visited Ankor Wat, Ellora, Pollonarua, Sigiria, Buddha Gaya,
>the Kulu valley and Swat, and also Borobudur many years ago and
>can recreate in my mind pictures of what I saw and where I went.
>I know that these images drawn from memory were and are limited
>to an experience then.  And that the current reality is quite
>different as to superficial detail.
>
>I have listened to talks and lectures, and sometimes an hour
>later the exact statements, words, meanings have become blurred.
>I know that with the help of Hypnotism it is possible to recreate
>and reproduce the exact words and events as heard or seen by me.
>And that is limited to my perception.  Had you been with me on my
>trips or attended the same lectures, your memories and
>perceptions would vary, in detail from mine, and one might say
>that the degree of attention WE placed on the event delineated
>our memories with more or less accuracy.

That's true, since we all direct our conscious attention to different aspects 
of what we mutually experience, and these experiences are further modified by 
our different memories and associations. Thus our later memories of the same 
experience vary and are interpreted differently (as you mention below).  
>
The mysterious power of concentration, attention and will that
>each one employs individually leaves an impression that is strong
>or weak in terms of the personal interests of the experiencer.
>And this is another variable. The object in itself is a reality
>then, and a new reality today.  My memory shows intensities or
>gaps depending on what I was interested in at the time of making
>a personal record.  Additionally in me is a recording system that
>I cannot ordinarily evoke which records everything. I would also
>take into account the well-known biological/medical fact that the
>human body changes its atomic and molecular structure to about 96
>% annually.  And in 7 years it is said to be totally replaced.
>Yet, my senses of identity and my "memories" of 30 to 50 years
>ago are available to me even in the physical tool that my body is
>today, and even though it has been altered or replaced.  How is
>that explained?  Transmission of impressions?  How ?

Easily... Since the material changes in the body have little relationship to 
the nonphysical energy fields that make up the balance of our seven fold 
natures. It's only the malleable field of mind that we can change willfully.  
And, these changes can, by application of the power of will, transfer their 
vibratory patterns to other fields, reversibly -- from our consciousness to 
our body, and from our body's brain and sensory organs to our awareness.... 
Thus, accounting for our ability to not only self heal our bodies by correct 
visualizations and application of willful intent, but also to change or 
modify our memories as well as our karma.  Didn't Buddha say, "EVERYTHING we 
are is the product of what we have THOUGHT?"  Therefore, mind has a 
phenomenological power.  And, that could only be if Mind is an electrical 
coenergetic field can interface with the energy field of the Brain which 
doesn't depend on the neurons changing their fundamental elements -- so long 
as the neurons analogous seven fold fields remain intact.  Even a cell in the 
body has its own inner life fields. Remember?  As above so below.  All living 
organisms of matter are surrounded by their own analogous, coenergetic 
fields, as well as having a central zero-point of individual awareness.  
Thus, everything in the universe has the potential of perceptive awareness.  
Speaking in theosophical terms, the zero-point must be everywhere -- with 
each point surrounded by its own coenergetic fields that eventually evolves 
into its seven fold nature when it arrives at the human stage.  The 
manifestation of this potential awareness, of course, would depend on the 
degree of evolution of the field energy transformational mechanisms within 
the evolving brain.

As for our (or, for that matter, any sentient being's) relationship to the 
world... Identity, per se -- has nothing to do with physical form, and is a 
fundamental a priori function of the static, unchanging zero-point of 
individual self that has the same characteristics as the universal Self.  
And, thus, can never change, no matter what changes are made in the various 
coadunate fields of energy surrounding it, or the materials that compose its 
surrounding body.  All we can do is make the changes on the lower level of 
mind that resonate into the higher Manas and Buddhi fields that, along with 
Atma, the spiritual self, constitute the eternal monad that impresses its 
skandas (acquired tendencies) in the akashic record, and follows us from 
lifetime to lifetime driven by the laws of karma.  Knowing how all this works 
from a theosophical scientific point of view only adds to our wisdom in 
enabling us to cope with life as we experience it in the ever present NOW.  
The secret is that the zero-point-instant of our self identity is identical 
with the zero-point-origin of primal space, which is everywhere... Therefore, 
we can truly say, "The self of one is the Self of all," and that "Universal 
Brotherhood is a law of Nature."  And that's really all that is, and all that 
counts.
>
>At best we have proved that each event produces a hologram of
>effects, and that all who were present absorbed an aspect of that
>hologram and each pixel demonstrates both its individuality (if
>that be allowed) and its capacity for registering the entire
>event/picture, or whatever.

We never can "prove" this. We can only experience it subjectively and know it 
intuitively.  We can then, logically, deduce its necessary mechanisms by 
applying the fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity (along with the 
"secret" given above) under which the universe must work.  This was clearly 
spelled out in the second fundamental principle which logically progresses 
from the first principle, and to the third principle.  That's all there is 
that we have to work with -- whether we are creating a universe, painting a 
picture out of our imagination, designing and building a spaceship, or 
creating a hologram.  First, the ideational image, then the thought image, 
then the blueprint image, and finally the physical structural image.  All of 
these steps are holographic in their interrelated and dynamical nature, and 
are complete in themselves in the first manifest moment of the big, bigger, 
biggest bang, bang, bang -- as the universe initially explodes into each of 
its successive logoic coenergetic fields -- and then proceeds through its 
final condensation into our present multidimensional, dual natured, seven 
fold -- although eternally singular Cosmos, or (scientifically) "Space-time 
Continuum."

>Now if the whole of Nature does this, if every sentient atom has
>this capacity, then the surrounding "ether" is surcharged with
>these billions of superimposed images -- all memories.  Theosophy
>holds that the Astral Light and the Akasa are both recording
>areas where these are stored for short periods or long periods of
>time.
>
>But of what possible use is this descriptive process, much of
>which may be speculative, because we cannot entirely penetrate
>(yet) to the planes or perception and reception of Nature.  It
>may satisfy our hope of providing us, within the framework of our
>experience on the physical plane, with something that
>approximates the reality.  So, then, What value has it?

Understanding the actual process of information transfer between our inner 
fields, simplifies our concept of reality, links mind and consciousness to 
brain and body (through their electromagnetic fields) as well, and, thereby, 
gives us a rationale that can persuade the material minded to change their 
ideas about their own natures. This can make them far more prone to realize 
the ultimate truth of and accept the theosophical teachings of karma and 
reincarnation.  

Today, with the new post modern science of quantum cosmology rooted in 
Superstring and M-brane theories that recognizes these zero-point fields and 
speak of their "11 dimensions" (10, plus time, which is closely parallel with 
theosophical as well as both the Hebrew Sephirothal and analogous Brahmanic 
teachings) -- opens the door for us to penetrate the world of science, and 
thus influence the scientific gurus who, in turn, influence their 
materialistic disciples in this modern age.  These are the ones that HPB 
wanted us to reach, and therefore, such knowledge serves the real purpose of 
the theosophical Movement in this last and most important cycle of the TM 
before either our past depredations of the Earth and its overpopulation, or 
any one of a number of possible man made economic or ecological disasters 
overpowers us -- or the beginnings of a future "paradise on Earth" can begin 
to occur.  And, this can only happen if the bulk of the world's population, 
change their minds about the nature of reality, learn the universal truths 
leading to right thought and right action, and begin to practice Universal 
brotherhood and intelligent altruism.
>
>As to the processes that either the Sankhya or the Buddhist
>schools discuss, the verbiage may seem different, but either of
>them deal with the same things, one uses a different method than
>the other.  What is valuable is the ability to perceive this and
>then to reconcile the two.  I would say that this ability far
>transcends any ability to find the precise words that describe
>either process or position.  This last is synthesis rather than
>analysis.  One can spend a great deal of time trying to adjust
>words, when a simple adjustment of ideas to discover the
>essentials is valuable.  Is that why it is said that a picture is
>worth a thousand words?

Yes.  And, that's why it is necessary to give out the "picture" of nature's 
formerly mysterious technology of information transfer between our differing 
(higher or lower frequency orders) fields of energy -- that not only explains 
the morphogenetic field interactions between the astral and material body 
fields, necessary to understand the "real" physical evolutionary processes, 
but also clarifies how the same principles operate between and link together 
the higher nonmaterial fields of vital energy, desire, mind, memory, 
intuition, etc., all the way up to the akashic record.  Remember, all we can 
do, as HPB did, is to try to create such pictures in the mind through the use 
of language.  But this language has to be greatly modified so that it 
interfaces with both theosophy and the scientific method that governs most 
thinking in this materialistic age.  Fortunately, we have the mass media that 
uses a new language of 3-D computer generated imagery as well as the spoken 
word to transmit nonlinear multidimensional ideas that can be understood by 
everyone, no matter what degree of education they may have. 
>
>I realize that this is in no way an "answer" to what I have read.
>But it is a point of view that attempts to do away with confusion
>of language and ask what actually is a thought, or an idea.  How
>is it generated?  Who or what in us does this generating?  What
>can we do to control and use this process?  It is so easy to
>lose sight of the questions in attempts to make scholarly
>definitions.

The definitions we must use to explain theses processes must not be 
scholarly, but logically consistent with proven scientific principles that 
have been gathered and utilized through long period of meticulous 
observations and experimentation that the world takes, mistakenly, as 
fundamental truths upon which they base their present thinking processes, 
their actions, as well as their useful technologies.  Once we understand the 
differences between our awareness and self identity and the fields through 
which they work, as well of the processes of information retention, 
transformation and transmission between our seven fields of action, it will 
be relatively easy to jump the gap between theosophical and pragmatic 
materialistic thinking.  

The questions asked can only be answered if we first understand the nature of 
the fields through which information is absorbed, retained and transferred 
coenergetically from one level of consciousness to another, how this 
information (whether in the form of words or pictures) is carried 
holographically by each field, and how our center of awareness accesses this 
information and experiences it.  This is partially explained in the preliminar
y notes for my theory of Astro biological Coenergetics, posted at: 
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ And, will be further 
explained in a forthcoming book... Although, I have no idea when and if it 
will ever be finished, since new scientific discoveries and theories such as 
Superstring and M-branes, P-branes, etc, are gradually bringing mainstream 
science into the picture -- with new discoveries coming forth at a rapidly 
accelerating rate.  
>
>In the VOICE OF THE SILENCE, (By H.P.Blavatsky)  in the section
>titled THE TWO PATHS there is an attempt made to show the
>difference and the relationship between what are named the "Eye"
>and the "Heart" doctrines.  It is inevitable that the academic
>who seeks extreme accuracy in describing events and relationships
>uses a precise vocabulary.  But while this has its value, the
>actual user of the process needs practical answers.
>
>As an example there is a relationship, and also a wide difference
>between the Chemist in his lab and the Chemical Engineer in his
>factory.  The Engineer uses the discoveries of the Chemist, but
>in making them practically available to the public, he employs
>shortcuts that achieve results statistically useful while
>rejecting those byproducts, etc. which have no relevance to what
>he desires to develop and make available for use. It is not that
>they are not recognized, they are merely set aside so that they
>can be analyzed and perhaps developed separately into products
>that can be used for other things.  It is also true that these
>byproducts have often (in the past) been unsafely stored or
>dumped and the resulting pollution of land, water and air has
>caused important legal revisions to be applied as to their
>disposal.  But the real moral of the story is that the Engineer
>under the control of the owners failed to provide adequate
>safeguards for the public.  One may call this the "moral" aspect
>of science and its applications.  It is this moral aspect that
>ought to be always held relevant.  Does not everyone ultimately
>suffer from such moral lapses?  What is their future impact on
>those who permit this and on the civilization that accepts them?

All this is true, and the only way I can see, IMHO, to counteract the 
irresponsibility of current thought and its resultant negative actions, as 
well as bring the eye doctrine and the heart doctrine into a synthetic whole, 
would be to merge both theosophy and science by means of a precise "new" 
vocabulary that can be understood by theosophists who now follow the heart 
doctrine and/or the eye doctrine, along with the scientifically based world 
that follows the reductive thinking processes of materialism.  

Didn't HPB teach us the eye doctrine first in the SD in order to give us a 
true basis of understanding the necessity of the heart doctrine?  Didn't she, 
as well as WQJ stress the importance of Gnana yoga as the primary study of 
theosophy--reflected in the thousands of pages of the Secret Doctrine (which 
came after the voluminous study of comparative religion in Isis Unveiled)? 
And, didn't she leave the Heart Doctrine to be practiced simultaneously (by 
each individual chela) with the help of her translations and teachings in the 
skinny little book, The Voice of the Silence--supplemented by WQJ's equally 
short transliteration of Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms?  Therefore, the ordinary 
people, too, have to be given the Eye Doctrine first, in terms that they can 
comprehend, before they can understand the necessity for accepting their 
responsibility to the whole of life and, thus, have a *reason* to begin 
practicing the altruism that is the true purpose of the Heart Doctrine. To 
demand the other way around, falls into the realm of "preaching" -- which is 
almost asking to be resisted by independent young minds that demand a logical 
or emotional reason for everything they do.  
>
I hope this discussion further clarifies the minds of most of us who, 
hopefully, are busy trying to change the minds of others. :-).  But, it ain't 
easy to understand the real nature of "the unexplained laws of nature and the 
psychical powers latent in man."

Leon Maurer
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/UAG.home.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/LHM.index.html

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.