Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00339)

Bart,

Thanks for your candor and your explanation.  Sorry about your father.  I had 
the same problem with mine, but I managed to leave him stranded on a road 
between somewhere and nowhere when I was around 23, and proceeded to overcome 
his dominance and take and make over the arrogant genes he endowed me with.  
Being himself now long in his spirit body, he is still within my 
consciousness and helping me overcome his bad habits. :-)  Incidentally, I'm 
glad to see someone else trying to clear his own similarly conditioned decks. 
 (What better way than to write it all down.)

Nevertheless, I was never able to contradict my father's bizarre notion that 
everything in the universe, or out of it (waiting to become a universe), 
cannot be resolved to anything less than pure motion that is imbued with 
infinite energy and infinite knowledge of itself, and of everything that is 
possible to make out of itself.  (You might imagine the rages he got into 
when someone disagreed with this.) 

Being THAT -- even though, to our normal non spiritualized cognizance it may 
appear as being no-thing or "empty" of all attributes -- we must believe that 
it still is completely "full" of the potency of all that is, was, or ever 
will be.  Therefore, since its seven fold nature (not counting the eighth one 
left out) is always fundamental whether in potentiality or in actuality -- 
those numbers, as either abstract or concrete symbols, would have fundamental 
significance (as does the  one in three aspects of the primal beginning).

I would also like to comment that the words "naught was" -- meaning, 
"no-thing (manifest, phenomenal or describable being, etc.) that existed 
before manifestation -- can be highly descriptive, albeit in a negative 
sense, of what remained of the "seed" of the ALL after its previous 
phenomenal existence.  This is the ultimate paradox that joins emptiness with 
fullness, noumena with phenomena, etc., and is the root of all subsequent 
opposites.  Thus, although, pure energy in itself, empty of all attributes 
(but not aspects), cannot be considered as a "thing" or as a describable 
object having physical properties in space-time... However, when potential 
time, as a measure of change, exists simply as "infinite duration," and no 
change can occur, both time and space can be imagined or intuited as having 
essential existence in themselves -- since they are, together, in essence, 
the "causeless cause," or the latent cause and empowerment of the "great 
breath" (which must take place over time)...  Or, as the Hebrews and 
Buddhists would say, "THAT which is without beginning or end"... Or, as it 
would describe itself as; "I AM THAT I AM."  And, this is the alpha (aleph) 
and omega (zed) of it -- as I see it.  Thus, all primal, symmetrical, or 
indivisible numbers (1,3,5,7,9) have noumenal significance, just as the 
intermediate, divisible, or derived numbers (2,4,6,8) have phenomenal 
significance.  The only thing (in its broadest meaning) that is an illusion, 
then, is the concept that no "thing" changes, or that any "thing" lasts foreve
r -- including our illusions or our habits.:-)

Leon Maurer   


In a message dated 05/27/00 3:43:05 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >> >     (Bart) There is actually a significance to the number 7, but it 
is entirely
>> >> >illusory. That becomes clear from a reading of THE DIVINE PLAN.
>> >>
>> >> How illusory?  If you examine the endless and beginningless three
>cycle
>> >> flow of the first energy line circling around the primal point of
>origin,
>> >> you will note that its first derivative is three circles (or spheres).
>> >
>> >    You have saved everybody a good chunk of the task in your explanation.
>> >
>> >Now, consider the 1st Stanza of Dzyan, and, with your knowledge of math,
>> >you should see why I state that the significance of the number 7 is
>> illusory.
>> >Or, perhaps more properly, Illusion.
>>
>> (Leon) I'm afraid my limited knowledge of math must be insufficient to 
understand
>> what in the first stanza leads you state that the "significance of the
>number
>> seven is illusory or an illusion."  What about the "seven eternities"
>during
>> which the eternal Parent slumbered?  If the slumbering parent is the
>only
>> significant reality, why isn't its states of eternality (which has to
>be
>> related to its duration in some measure of cyclic time) also be as
>> significant?
>
>    A) Since there was no time, the phrase "7 eternities" has a meaning
>that I
>doubt any of us can understand. However, let's take a look first into the
>concept
>of "1 into 3 into 7". There is one unchanging reality. That reality is
>distorted
>through the "lenses" (for lack of a better term) of the roots of matter,
>energy,
>and consciousness (1 into 3). Now, if you recombine the 3 in all possible
>ways
>(as happens in the manvantara, the maya, the illusory reality if you will),
>you
>get 8 ways of combining. But note that one of those ways is "none of the
>above",
>null, or naught. But in our view of reality, there IS no empty space. Current
>science experiments in so-called "zero point energy", based on the logical
>extension of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, have shown that this
>to be the
>case. In the 1st stanza of Dzyan, the prolaya is described, at least in
>part, as
>"Naught was". This can mean that there was nothing, or it can also mean
>that the
>very principle of Nothing, which does not exist in our view of reality,
>existed
>in the prolaya. Which makes 7 a number very symbolic of the manvantara
>vs. the
>prolaya, and THAT is what I meant by 7 being illusory. I apologize for
>being
>cryptic; I should have just gone right out and said it, and let everybody
>accept
>it or attack it, as they desired.
>
>    Now for the REASON I have been somewhat more snide than even usual.
>It was
>annoyance, plain and simple, which I have been taking out on everybody,
>not just
>the sources of my annoyance. To take the myth of Jesus to explain, Jesus
>was
>giving his apostles the secrets of the Universe, and his apostles busied
>themselves trying to figure out important problems like, is it permissable
>to sit
>at a table with non-Jews.
>
>    Here we have at least the beginnings of the secrets of the Universe
>laid out
>in front of us, and we have people playing word games with it, trying to
>extract
>meanings based on things which were probably quite arbitrary while ignoring
>what
>was put in there on purpose. And I should have been saying that from the
>beginning rather than resorting to sarcastic put-downs; all I can say as
>explanation (not excuse) is that it is an inherited trait from my father.
>It is
>hard (but not impossible) to escape from one's upbringing.

-- 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.