Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00120)

Beautifully written.  I agree with everything you have said.  Once one has
been initiated into the community of Souls, however, one needs to know that
from that perspective Pure Mathematics is a language more suited to the
pursuit of the Theos Sophia, perhaps.  Much confusion continues as good and
probably initiated disciples continue to cling to ordinary academic and
street language rather than take the time to understand the mathematical key
somewhat, particulary that which pertains to the ZERO, THE ONE, and the
great illusion, THE TWO.

Thankyou so much for taking the time to address some of my interests.  I
feel much more welcomed into the group.  I had just written earlier today
that I felt sad that no one had responded.  You have healed that saddness!

You seem to know alot, unlike me, about Leibniz and Spinoza.  T'would make a
wonderful book!

Love,
Gene


-----Original Message-----
From: ASANAT@aol.com <ASANAT@aol.com>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Cc: ARASantaFE@aol.com <ARASantaFE@aol.com>; Elliot Ryan <nppress@vais.net>;
csanabri@skadden.com <csanabri@skadden.com>; Armando Verea <averea@juno.com>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Mathematics, Spinoza, Leibniz


>In a message dated 4/27/00 2:15:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes:
>
><<  I think I can irritate the hell out of mathematicians and show them
that
>pure
> mathematics is about as close as one can get to esoteric philosophic
roots.
> And, finally, I love this, that HPB wrote:(I paraphrase)
>
> If one understands the philosophy of Leibniz and the philosophy of Spinoza
> and harmonizes the conflicts between these two philosophers one has the
> whole of the spirit of esoteric philosophy.  (And she goes on to write
that
> Spinoza is a subjective Pantheist and Leibniz is an objective Pantheist.)
>
> It is this last paragraph that states the challange to theosophy in our
time
> if one wishes bridge the apparent gap between esoteric philosophy and
> western science.
> I've no training in philosophy or mathematics, except the basics, but I
can
> cheerlead others into getting this job done.  Let's harmonize the
conflicts
> between Leibniz and Spinoza and thereby have a philosophy that can
harmonize
> the conflicts between our transpersonal souls and our personalities.
Let's
> let the world know, loud and clear, and in their own language, that HPB is
> the greatest source of information about Life that the world as seen for
> hundreds of years.  The moment has come.
> Love,
> Eugene >>
>
>Dear Eugene,
>
>I'd like to share a couple of thoughts on your very thoughtful message.
>The first, concerning the place of mathematics & "esoteric philosophic
>roots."  According to HPB & her teachers, the ancient wisdom MUST be
>understood in terms of seven keys.  The mathematical key is one of those.
>But -- again, according to HPB & her teachers -- the MASTER KEY that MUST
be
>turned FIRST before any of the others can have any efficacy, is the
>PSYCHOLOGICAL or MYSTICAL KEY.  That is the key that stands for INITIATION,
>TRANSFORMATION.  If that key is not turned first, we are told, we'll end up
>in confusion, conflict, or worse -- in black magic.  (If you wish to see
>specific references to what I've just said, please read my papers on "The
>Secret Doctrine, Krishnamurti, and Transformation," and (in two parts)
>"Transformation:  Vital Essence of HPB's Secret Doctrine."  They can both
be
>downloaded by going to www.teosofia.com.
>So from an esoteric perspective, mathematics is useless, even dangerous, if
>there is not first transformation going on in one's life.  For the dangers
of
>mathematics in particular (& of science in general) when uninformed by
>theosophical states of awareness, please witness the present rape of the
>whole planet -- which could not happen without mathematicians &
"scientists"
>-- or its possible destruction through some idiotic system-monger pushing
>some button & blowing us all up to smithereens -- with technology created
by
>untransformed mathematics & science.
>About Spinoza & Leibniz:  It strikes me rather intensely that what is by
far
>most relevant in the work of these two men is almost always ignored, when
>they are studied from an academic perspective.  To me what truly matters
>about them both is the saintliness & insight-compassion that saturates
their
>work.  That saintliness & insight-compassion is what informs every single
>thing they had to say, & strikes me as their real source.  But
academically,
>we are told that Spinoza was "philosophizing by doing geometry, or
>geometrizing by doing philosophy," & that Leibniz was "the monadologist,
for
>whom everything is reducible to incommensurable spiritual points."
>Yes, Spinoza's great work, the Ethics, was written, as he put it in Latin,
>"more geometrico" (in a geometrical way).  But if the saintliness that work
>came from is ignored, its whole point WILL be ignored, as well.  At least
>that's the way it strikes me.
>In other words, & as in the esoteric teaching (as outlined above in terms
of
>the seven keys), there were first theosophical states of awareness --
>transformation -- & then an attempt at expressing the reality of such
states,
>using a language that would be understandable & acceptable to the 17th
>Century audience for whom it was primarily written.
>I'll share with you what strikes me as eminently relevant about the work of
>these two men, from an esoteric perspective:
>Leibniz "starts" as if from the MICROCOSM, whereas Spinoza "starts" as if
>from the MACROCOSM.  Spinoza is attempting to tell us "the way things are"
>from "God's perspective."  Leibniz attempts to do the same, but seemingly
>starting from "the monad," the "particular" unit which is actually like a
>hologram of the entire universe, since it reflects the all within itself,
as
>a kind of universal DNA.
>Esoterically, both are "right," insofar as they are both saying that there
>MUST be the particular & the universal engaged simultaneously.  But
>esoterically, none of this can really be spoken about, without making
>colossal mistakes.  (This is, incidentally, a major "reason" why the
ancient
>wisdom has always been "hidden, occult.")
>This oneness between the particular & the universal can only be a
>PSYCHOLOGICAL process, an ACTION one engages in, not a merely INTELLECTUAL
>consent or BELIEF.  If it is only the latter (which is what is done
>everywhere with the work of these two men), one ends up in a self-centered
>miasma, thinking that one now "understands better," whereas the fact is
that
>one has only succeeded in ACCEPTING a new system-based notion, without
having
>even the vaguest understanding, since one has not gone through the
extremely
>rigorous process of transformation, which was the source for these works,
in
>the first place.
>This central esoteric "teaching" of the unity between the particular & the
>universal (which are extraordinarily clumsy, inadequate, & misleading
WORDS)
>has been expressed in its most clear way, to my knowledge, in the work of
J.
>Krishnamurti.  A main reason for that, is that in K's work there is no
>reference at all to any purely ANALYTICAL CONCEPTS.  Therefore, it is
nearly
>impossible, within K's work, to make the kinds of mistakes that used to be
so
>very common within as well as without esoteric circles.  The only way it's
>possible to make such mistakes within K's work is by grossly
misrepresenting
>them.
>This is VITAL, because if & to the extent one persists in the belief that
the
>analytical mind is in a position to yield valuable "insights" into THAT
WHICH
>IS, to that extent one will be saturated with, & promoting, confusion,
>conflict, & division, both psychologically & globally.
>With affection,
>Aryel
>
>-- 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.
>


-- 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.