Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00234)

<<<<If I show you a diamond under strong light, and with instruments,
you will see its facets and part way into the stone. It is then
your memory and opinion concerning it that you will store and may
transmit to me or to others. For the physical plane we have a
group of converging similarities Is this not similar to your
"tree" analogy ?>>>>

Does the "diamond" or "tree" exist as an external real thing independent of
our observations? That is the key question to these analogies. I would
answer that something does, in fact, exist, but not a single entity or
thing, but rather a collection that we lable diamond or tree and impute a
reality onto it that doesn't really exist. This is what maya (illusion) is
all about.


<<<<<But if we get into the study of mans psychology, his feelings,
desires, ambitions, defenses, thoughts, aspirations, we seem to
flounder in a welter of opinions concerning which there is
inadequate information until we come to use the 7-fold division
into "principles" of Man and Nature. Then things get related and
seem to make better sense.>>>>

I have no idea what you mean here. I have studied Jungian psychology, and am
not familiar with the "welter of opinions" that you mention, nor have I
encountered anyone who is "floundering." Personally, I honestly believe that
most Theosophists confound the principles so badly that they remain, for
them, merely words and concepts. Blavatsky doesn't help much. In INNER GROUP
TEACHINGS she tells us that there is a correspondence of one principle for
each plane. Seven principles, seven planes. Sounds pretty straightforward
until we learn that the physical body is not really a principle, and then
she sometimes uses the auric egg as a principle and sometimes not, and if
manas is on the mental plane (which would certainly make sense) and kama on
the astral plane (which also makes sense), then we are stuck with extra
lower priciples without planes to put them on, and two upper planes with no
principles for them. So, I have concluded from all of this that one cannot
take this teaching too literally and I would suspect that your "better
sense" is your own subjective take on things that are actually every bit as
complicated and confusing as modern psychology.


<<<<I would call the inner (invisible and intangible planes)
concepts, ideas, and would give them the dubious value of my
personal opinion. Now, if I can link my opinion with many
similar opinions and if I can determine that the basis for those
views is similar, then perhaps, I have a chance of saying:
"There appears to be a Law operating.":>>>>

First of all, the planes are not concepts, unless you mean the concept of
the planes. In any case, there are two alternative conclusions that one can
draw from such consensual observations: (1) that such agreed-upon things
actually do exist independent of observers or (2) that our human minds
interpret sensory data in ways that can be shared to some extent by others.
If we go with 1 then we look for (with expectation to find) external laws of
nature, and perhaps even for a mathematical language in which to express
those laws. Of course, mathematics is itself a made-made langage, and only
expresses relationships taken from consensual observations. If we instead go
with 2 then we look for (with expectation to find) internal laws of nature.
These internal laws suggest that external objects do not exist independently
from observers. They suggest that while collections or aggregates of parts
exist, entities do not. They further suggest that the mistaken perception of
entities comes from mentally imputing entitive existence onto aggregates
that are arranged in certain recognizable ways and given labels/names so
that after awhile one thinks that such labels/names exist as such. The
processes of imputation and naming are conducted under very specific rules
or laws. So, in either case, yes, "there appears to be a Law operating."


<<<I am of the opinion that Theosophy comes under the second
heading. It is well out of the realm of personal opinion.>>>

Since a Theosophist cannot "prove" one single "core teaching" (if they
could, the whole world would be Theosophists by now) I find your above
statement to be a giant leap of faith. It sounds just like materialists who
say that sensory data is beyond the realm of personal opinion. I would say
that you are both wrong. Nothing at all about reality can ever be "proved"
to anyone's satisfaction other than our own. We each form our own worldview
as we go along, and that worldview is all we can ever hope to know about
reality - for all intents and purposes, OUR WORLDVIEW IS OUR REALITY.



<<<Theosophy does claim to be an expression recorded since the
beginning of manifestation of the processes used in Nature for
that development. >>>>

I think you are going too far when you make assertions like this. As far as
I know, it only claims to be the oral/written record of certain linages of
observers. It is, in fact, a certain worldview, one that has been
substantiated by observers who claim to have been Adepts. I like it, not
because it is "truth," but because its worldview is close to my own.


<<<<In my analogy: The Diamond remains unaffected and can be viewed
by others.>>>>

Here you seem to be choosing alternative 1, the belief that the diamond has
an external reality independent of observers. This is also the
viewpoint/belief of materialism. I do not subscribe to this view, preferring
alternative 2. The diamond, in fact, cannot be observed by a blind person,
and will not be seen the same way by a color-blind person, looks different
in different light, will be admired by some and distained by others, is just
a name that we give to a certain mineral aggregate, and so forth and so on.



<<<<Theosophy as you will have noticed presents a coherency. By all
means challenge it.>>>>>>

Dallas, I am not challenging Theosophy. Rather, I am challenging your
interpretation of Theosophy. In doing this, I am NOT saying that you are
"wrong." I am, rather, trying to show you that there is a deeper way of
looking at things, that the "core teachings" do not have to be taken
literally, and that Blavatsky's writings should be viewed in context with
her overall view of things. I may be doing a poor job here, but at least
this is my intent. I am not trying to start arguments, but am trying to open
minds. No one has to accept anything I say.



<<<<Theosophy does not expect to make converts. The students and
exponents of theosophy (like myself) offer its tents and
doctrines for study and critical review (as you so kindly
provide).>>>>>

Dallas, please don't take my responses as "critical review" because I am not
trying to criticize, so much as to broaden. I am offering other ways to look
at the "core teachings" and have been trying to give logical reasons. When
Blavatsky writes that the atma-buddhi monad is eternal, she does not mean
that it exists forever, but only so long as this manvantara lasts, which is
a long time but not forever. The fact is, the atma-buddhi is NOT eternal,
although we can say that it is relatively eternal - eternal relative to one
single lifetime. But it changes, and so when you call it eternal you are
being illogical. If we ignore her definition of eternity, and just throw out
quotes that the monad is eternal, it misleads other Theosophists or
potential Theosophists into wrong views. It may seem technical or picky to
you, but getting the correct wording to an idea is important to me. (When I
read statements that are technically inaccurate I don't know if its sloppy
wording or if the writer doesn't know what they are writing about)

Enough for now. Peace,

Jerry S.