Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00015)

Dear Tony,

 

I am trying to work from universals downward and wish to find and then proceed step by step downward from the most spiritualto the more material.  I wish every step to be logical and provable and subject to intense constructive criticism.

 

  There are assumptions on which plane geometry is constructed.  'twould be neat to start at the beginning without any assumptions whatsoever, no?

 

When I listed the ten dots I am getting into an area that I would love to understand better but don't.  I was delighted when a mathematician pointed out to me that the point, the two points of the line, the three points of the triangle and the four points of the tetrhedron form the ten points of the tetractys.  So one has:

 

(on the microcosmic scale)

 

1. Logoic plane(state of consciousness)

 

2. Monadic plane

 

3. Atmic plane:  Atma, the one mathematical point within the circle

 

4. Buddhic plane: the two points of the line

 

5. Manasic plane(higher Manas): the three points of the triangle

 

    Manasic plane(lower Manas): the four points of the tetrahedron( here I'm not at all clear, I've always studied the SD down to the level of the triangle and then stopped, so . . . . help!  I'm guessing that the tetrahedron stands for the concrete, practical mind)

 

The paragraph you have quoted seems so important and crucial to understand.  Perhaps others might help clarify.  Iwish to stay focussed on the problem of "where" the mathematical point comes from.  I suspect that it is potential only at the logoic plane as there is nothing, no abstract space even, that might allow it to appear.  The circle representing Total unconditioned consciousness and bare subjectivity must be PRESENT in order for the point to "Appear" and start the creative cycle once again.  My experience is that I get tired, I forget, then I rest and meditate . . . . and remember: essentially it is all absolutely nothing whatsoever!  To me this is a tiny spark of enlightenment.  It takes so little to make fool laugh and giggle.

 

Gene

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony

To: theos-talk@egroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:31 AM

Subject: RE: Theos-World Struggling to find the origin of the point of it All.

Dear Eugene

 

You write

<<<on the intimate relationships between these sets.>>>

 

Although not understanding all you have written,

<<<between>>> would appear to be the operative "word."

 

Between 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3, the "and".

 

Your mail ends with the ten "dots," but does the significance lie in between the dots?   The seven hidden mathematical points...here is the whole quote from "The Secret Doctrine" pages 612-613):

 

"Theo philosophy proceeds on broader lines. From the very beginning of AEons -- in time and space in our Round and Globe -- the Mysteries of Nature (at any rate, those which it is lawful for our races to know) were recorded by the pupils of those same now invisible "heavenly men," in geometrical figures and symbols. The keys thereto passed from one generation of "wise men" to the other. Some of the symbols, thus passed from the east to the west, were brought therefrom by Pythagoras, who was not the inventor of his famous "Triangle." The latter figure, along with the plane cube and circle, are more eloquent and scientific descriptions of the order of the evolution of the Universe, spiritual and psychic, as well as physical, than volumes of descriptive Cosmogonies and revealed "Geneses." The ten points inscribed within that "Pythagorean triangle" are worth allthe theogonies and angelologies ever emanated from the theological brain. Forhe who interprets them -- on their very face, and in the order given -- willfind in these seventeen points (the seven Mathematical Points hidden) the uninterrupted series of the genealogies from the first Heavenly to terrestrial man. And, as they give the order of Beings, so they reveal the order in which were evolved the Kosmos, our earth, and the primordial elements which the latter was generated. Begotten in the invisible Depths, and in the womb of the same "Mother" asits fellow-globes -- he who will master the mysteries of our Earth, will have mastered those of all others."

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Carpenter [mailto:Ecarpent@co.la.ca.us]
Sent: 2 January 2001 10:52 pm
To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
Cc: Esoteric Science
Subject: Theos-World Struggling to find the origin of the point of it All.

Dear Group,

 

 

I'm trying to understand whether or not the first three states or planes of consciousness correspond to the first three sets: zero, one and two.  And if so gain insight into the intimacyof these planes through meditating on the intimate relationships between these sets.

 

 

 

1.  Empty Set

 

2.  Set containing the empty set

 

3.  Set containing both of the above

 

 

or.

 

 

 

1. Zero

 

2. One

 

3. Two

 

 

 

or.

 

 

 

 

1.  (        )

 

2.  (  (  )  )

 

3.  (       (), (  ( )  )      )

 

 

 

Let's pretend that we enter into the empty set as if it were an empty consciousness.  Then we might "see":

 

 

1.

 

2. (       )

 

3. (   ( ),     )

 

 

In other words:

 

1. Consciousness which is empty

 

2. Consciousness which contains the

     representation of empty

     consciousness

 

3. Consciousness which contains repre-

     sentations ofboth states above.

 

 

Two things one might notice which seemvery very cool.

 

If one is at the third state of consciousness and focuses on the  number 1. state one becomes most resonate with the number 2. state.

 

(                    )

 

 

If one is at the third state but instead focusing on the representation of number 2. then one would be most resonant with the number  3. state.

 

(  (    )           )

 

 

By doing so the effect would be to be resonant to the number 2. state and then to the number 3. state,  like going in and out of pralaya.( from Atma to Monadic, back to

Atma, etc.)

 

 

 

The other interesting observation is to recognize that:

 

1. Here there is no inside and no outside

    and can be no symbol.  A mathematical point has no inside but must have an outside.

 

2. Here there is inside but no outside,

    in fact, all of abstract space itself.  There is no abstract

    space outside of abstract space.

 

 

3. Here there is that which has insidebut

    no outside together, but it is together in the same state

    of consciousness asthat with no inside 

    and no outside, ( that with no inside and no outside is like a mathematical

    point without any space in which to be

    expressed.)

 

 

BUT

 

 

 Can't these two, now found in state number 3.,  now be superimposed? We could then get:

 

 

1.

 

2. (              )

 

3. (      .       )

 

 

 

Now, at level three, the mathematical point can appear as the abstract space it needed was represented at level two.  One can concentrate on the point without any abstract space, and fail, or one can concentrate on the space without any point, and just rest, or one can concentrate on both and then the point can appear.

 

 

This is why I'm thinking that the first three sets in mathematics corresponds to the first three abstract planes in any septenate of states(or planes) of consciousness.

 

1. Zero

 

2. One

 

3. Two

 

re-presented as

 

 

1.

 

2.  (            )

 

3.  (      .     )

 

 

This yields our beginning and ending point and it can polarize into the line and the line can be used to construct a triangle and the triangle can be used to construct a tetrahedron, etc.

 

 

 

 

            o

(           .            )

 

(        .      .        )

 

(      .     .     .     )

 

(   .     .    .     .   )

 

 

 

 

Gene