Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00152)

          0(-1 +1)           1                 0

      Appearance    Love      Non-Being


The Perfect Perception
Of Perfect Being
Is One and in Love with,
Non-being

Nothing as it will always be.
Nothing as it appears.
Always One.
Eternal Love.


Thanks,
Gene

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer <kellogg@west.net>
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Mathematics, Spinoza, Leibniz


>The mystic discerns the beginning
>   and end of consciousness,
>Produced and passing away.
>
>>From nowhere it came
>  to nowhere returns,
>Of reality as empty as the conjurer's trick.
>
>                        Lalitavistara Sutra
>
>
>One has heard that what we perceive as Real is only apparently so.  To aim
>high,
>the space/time continuum, purusha/prakriti the land of this or that has
only a
>conventional
>existence.  By continually detaching from the poles so to speak it would
appear
>that one
>would eventually reach a state of so-called superconductivity.
>
>Spencer
>
>Eugene Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Please tell me more about this.  This is very interesting.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Spencer <kellogg@west.net>
>> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Theos-World Mathematics, Spinoza, Leibniz
>>
>> >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.
>> >
>>
>> -- 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.