Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00130)

Was taught once that what we apparently see as, ... -1, 0, 1, ... is actually
an illusion
and what may actually be happening is more akin to 0, 1, 0 as visually
demonstrated
by the Tibetan dorje.

Spencer


Eugene Carpenter wrote:

> Spencer,
>
> Yes. Yes. Yes.  How to relax into the Zero!  I love it!  I can argue, well,
> that the zero can be symbolized by the empty set and that the set is  "a one
> that can be thought of as a many"(the many cancels out into a unity, a
> singularity) therefore the symbol of zero(the circle)(the empty set) is also
> the symbol for the expression of DIVINE LOVE.  Relaxing into the expression
> of DIVINE LOVE is rather a nice purpose ain't it.  Zero is the EMPTY ONE.
> Relax already, relax.
>
> Gene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer <kellogg@west.net>
> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
> Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Mathematics, Spinoza, Leibniz
>
> >When thinking about the unrestricted Fibonacci sequence, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5,
> 8,
> >13, 21, 34, 55, ...,
> >before there can even be a 2 there first must be knowledge of another 1.
> >Curious.  The key
> >then would seem, how to relax into the zero.
> >
> >Spencer
> >
> >Eugene Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
>
> -- 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.
begin:vcard 
n:Kellogg;Spencer
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:kellogg@west.net
x-mozilla-cpt:;1
fn:Spencer Kellogg
end:vcard