Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00019)

Again, you take everything I say out of context, and quote one thing and 
answer or ask questions referring to something entirely different. The link 
referred to makes no bones about being entirely fictional and has no 
relationship to the theoretical scientific analysis of fundamental forces 
underlying the ABC theory. 

I haven't the faintest idea what mathematics you are talking about. If its 
the mathematics of quantum gravity or string theory that confirms the logical 
multidimensionality of the ABC or theosophical metaphysical view, it's 
apparently you who doesn't understand any of it.

Therefore, any assertions you make regarding the invalidity of the zero-point 
originated multidimensionality of the universe in the form of "coenergetic, 
coadunate but not consubstantial" fields, are worthless -- unless you can 
come up with an alternate theoretical view that explains the nature of 
consciousness, mind and matter, and their origins and interrelationships, 
that current science along with their contrived materialistic mathematics -- 
related to the (theoretical and as yet unproved) "four dimensional space 
time continuum" -- cannot explain. 

LHM

In a message dated 04/01/02 1:50:21 AM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>Analytically, you can define any amount of dimensional space, there 
>could be a hundred dimensions, in other words, although such a 
>geometry might exist only in thought and not in the real world.
>But apparently you can't read the mathematics. 
>
>You mention a device to produce free-energy, but does it exist , or 
>is that also just hypothetically (fiction/fantasy )?
>
>http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/solwldcrystpos
>ter.html#anchor1097781
> 
> Bri.
>
>> 
>> In a message dated 03/23/02 3:51:32 PM, bri_mue@y... writes: '
>> [Quoting Jerry Schueler, followed by the usual hodgepodge of non 
>> sequitur historical and illogically prejudiced "proofs" (snipped) that the 
>> theosophical chakra system of 7 fold coadunate but not consubstantial
>> fields is a false, unscientific view.]
>> 
>> >Jerry: I find this something like using a shoe horn to get a small 
>> >shoe onto a large foot. I take this "antiquity" business with a grain 
>> >of salt. There is absolutely NO reason that anyone can show as to why 
>> >7 is necessary or better than 6 or 5. The Enochian system works well 
>> >with 6. Tibetan Buddhism works well with 5. Seven is arbitrary.
>> >You will seldom find any 7-sheath models in Hinduism or Buddhism or 
>> >Vedanta. Row was a Theosophist and was reaching. Most schemes have 
>> >five or six sheaths. And are these sheaths principles or bodies? It
>> >is still confusing. Judge and Besant both confounded bodies and
>> >principle has a corresponding body or vehicle (upadhi). HPB says 
>> >that each plane is associated with a principle. And so it goes, with 
>> >Theosophists today still arguing and debating on what it all means.
>> >This sevenfold division is very arbitrary and is NOT the way things 
>> >are experienced. It is purely a Theosophical methodology and if we 
>> >can all accept that, we will be better off. There is nothing wrong 
>> >with having our own divisions of 7, and such a division works well 
>> >for me, but we need to recognize and accept that it is arbitrary and 
>> >NOT some kind of law of nature.
>> 
>> The above statements indicate that your ideas are perhaps based on 
>> literally interpreted dogmas that fit with your own preconceptions and 
>> with your, possibly, mistaken interpretations of the Buddha's as well as 
>>since HPB's teachings -- which are quite paradoxical within themselves -- 
>> both teachers were faced with two opposite states of existence along with 
>> all the possible intermediate states, further confounded by their language 
>> barriers or lossesin translation. Therefore, we must be very careful to 
look
>> at their contrary statements about divisions of space with very careful 
>> consideration of the contextual nature as well as the stage of involution 
and/or 
>> evolution they are referring to -- coupled with a thorough understanding 
of and 
>> ability to apply fundamental principles -- before making any judgments 
that we 
>> are tempted to cut in stone. 
>> 
>> Maybe we should also stop looking at contradictory historical ideas and 
>> other people's concepts to gain knowledge of metaphysical truths, and 
>> start thinking for ourselves based on fundamental principles... That is, 
to 
>> scientifically derive in our own minds where all these different divisions 
>> come from, and how they fit in with the overall truth; Which is that, the 
>> differentiation's of primary space and its fundamental "spinergy" is 
>> ultimately infinitely divisible... With "strange attractors" along the way 
>> that bring, at different stages, differing degrees of order out of the 
>> initial chaos. Thus the basic divisions or "orders," "phases," "planes," 
>> "fields," etc., could be any number from two to a googolplex. Although, 
>> lower numbers from two to twenty-one tend to repeat themselves 
>> the periodically along the way. 
>> 
>> Therefore, there's no reason for the divisions of "coadunate but not 
>> consubstantial fields" of nature not to be based on fundamental laws of 
>> energy involution and evolution, starting from their zero (laya) points of 
>> origin. 
>> 
>> Since this starting point is composed solely of abstract motion or 
>> circular spin, its emanations must obey the fixed laws of cycles and 
>> periodicity which govern all the harmonics of vibrational energy
>> fields -- regardless of their spectrums,
>> phases or orders of frequency -- from astral light to physical sound 
>> (and even lower to gravitational waves). Therefore, all the field
>> involution's must follow the same laws of musical harmony -- which can 
>> be divided into either octaval, decimal or duodecimal scales -- as HPB 
>> repeatedly pointed out. As for these divisions, they can also be broken 
>> down into two, three, four, five, six, seven, ten, twelve, etc., 
>> subdivisions or harmonics. 
>> 
>> Since complete harmonies on the physical plane can be generated, 
>>> starting with the simplest seven fold system, this is the basis of 
choosing 
>> the 7 chakras which correspond with the octaval musical harmonies, and 
>>color scales or spectrums we directly experience. But, in some cultures 
>>>where their musical scales are based on the decimal or duodecimal system, 
>> it is common to choose such a "chakra" (center) or "sheath" (field) system 
>> (to describe the human "nature") -- that can be divided into either 3, 4, 
5, 
>> or 6 fields -- depending on the particular nature (spiritual, 
psychological, 
>>material, etc.) of the involved or evolved field effects that is being 
discussed. 
>> 
>> Thus, some "magical" systems are based on the 5 divisions and others 
>> on the 6 divisions. (For reasons there is no need to go into here.) But, 
>> fundamentally, all these systems are governed by the same scientific laws 
>> related to the coadunate but not consubstantial coenergetic and cyclic 
field 
>> nature of the universe (along with the analogous inner natures of all the 
>> beings involved and evolved within it). These laws of harmony as well as 
of 
>> analogy and correspondence are described in mystic parlance as, 
>> "The music of the spheres" and "As above, so below." 
>> 
>> Another good study practice, is to visualize the varying linear geometry's 
of 
>> the initial involution of the nonlinear circular forces -- using both the 
>> linear left and nonlinear right brain thought processes, simultaneously. 
For 
>> example, from a geometric point of view, at the zero-point, in order to 
>> linearly describe the primal at(o)mic 3 dimensional spherical state after 
>> initial emanation of the zero (laya) point's "spinergy," there would be, 
>> fundamentally, only three directional lines passing through that center 
point 
>> at right angles -- each line pointing in opposite directions. 
>> 
>> Thus the initial 3-dimensional spherical field can be represented in 
linear 
>> geometry by the 6 directions, up-down, left-right, front-back -- which, by 
>> connecting their axial end points, forms an inscribed octahedron or double 
>> pyramid diamond figure that has 3 axes, 6 outer points and 1 center 
>> point, as well as 8 triangular sides and 12 edges. This is the simplest 
>> inscribed linear geometry (that can also be transformed into a cube, which 
>> has 1 center point, 8 outer points, 6 sides and 12 edges) -- representing, 
>> analogously, the nonlinear spherical geometry of the 3 cycle primary 
energy 
>> radiation and its divisions into triune, coadunate but not consubstantial 
fields >> that forms the primal "Monad." (See the diagrams at: 
>> 
>http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.ht
>ml/ )
>> 
>> Thus -- since the octahedron is the simplest analogous form, with 
>its 7 
>> zero-points of origin and conjunction of subsequent evolutionary 
>fields (all 
>> based on the initial 3 cycle triune "monad" consisting of 1 outer 
>field and 2 
>> inscribed inner fields) -- it is most natural to use the initial 
>seven 
>> division system as the fundamental nature of the macrocosm, or 
>Cosmos, that 
>> is directly reflected in the microcosm, or Mankind (that also 
>relates 
>> directly to our three dimensional physical universe). This 
>corresponds with 
>> the primal involution formula in the Book of Dzyan, "The 3, the 1, 
>the 4, the 
>> 1, the 5, the twice 7, the sum total." (Thus, the 7 above, and the 
>7 below 
>> -- as the first numerological description of the analogous 
>relationship 
>> between the "chakra-fields" of the macrocosm and those of the 
>microcosm.) 
>> This is the fundamental and lawful mathematical (geometrical and 
>topological) 
>> basis of all theosophical metaphysics. And, is the root of all 
>other systems, 
>> each of which is based on one of the seven points of view of the 
>initial 
>> triune spin field. Unfortunately, the current basis of scientific 
>thought, 
>> while it can look into and describe the physical universe from its 
>six outer 
>> or objective points of view, does not consider the equally valid 
>inner 
>> central or subjective point of view -- and, thus, cannot experience 
>or 
>> determine the nature of the multidimensional inner, coadunate but 
>not 
>> consubstantial fields that are enclosed and contained by the 
>relatively 
>> eternal at(o)mic field.
>> 
>> This octaval scheme, of course, has nothing to do with magic -- 
>since it is 
>> used only to describe the fundamental or primary 7 fold nature of 
>> Cosmogenesis and its reflection in corresponding fields of human 
>> consciousness, along with the linking of the dual spiritual nature, 
>through 
>> the dual psychic nature, with the dual physical nature through 
>their 5 
>> intermediate connecting zero-points tying these dual fields 
>together. In 
>> addition, there are the 2 outer points linking the higher and lower 
>> (frequency) order fields (Atma and physical) with the surrounding 
>universal 
>> fields (Mahatma and Fohat). Thus, totaling 7 chakra points in all -
>- which, 
>> correlated with the initial at(o)mic triad, gives us the total of 
>ten as 
>> expressed in the so called "Trees of life," (symbolized either 
>circularly or 
>> linearly, depending on whether we look at the paths either as 8 
>nonlinear c
>> oadunate spherical fields and 3 zero points as 8 linear geometrical 
>divisions 
>> of the octahedron and three primary axes). 
>> 
>> That, incidentally, is the basis of the three plus seven fold, four 
>level 
>> spherical chakra system that is analogous with the similarly 
>numbered linear 
>> system -- since the zero-points and their surrounding coenergetic 
>fields are, 
>> by necessity, with respect to the perpendicular force of gravity 
>and the 
>> symmetry of the human body, lined up along the vertical axis. Ref: 
>the SD 
>> linear drawings of the Rounds and Races, and the Sephirothal tree, 
>as well as 
>> the symbolic initial involution field drawing at the above 
>mentioned web 
>> site. These seven points (below the triple "crown") are 
>the "chakras" spoken 
>> of in theosophical teachings and some Tibetan Buddhist teachings, 
>and 
>> represent the seven fold nature of both the macrocosm and the 
>microcosm. 
>> 
>> However, magical practices (which, incidentally, theosophy does not 
>consider 
>> useful to teach outside the inner circles of avowed "chelas") use 
>other d
>> ivisions based, symbolically, on the hexagon and pentagon 2-D 
>geometry's... 
>> (That are all, incidentally -- as parts of 3-D icosahedron and 
>dodecahedron 
>> geometry's -- contained within or projected from the primary 3-D 
>octahedron 
>> and cubic geometry's.) 
>> 
>> Interestingly, some 25 years ago, I built a 3-dimensional toothpick 
>model of 
>> that projection in a mobile sculpture that contained a logical 
>progression of 
>> all five regular polygons, one nested inside the other. It's also 
>> interesting that, if you assemble 6 octahedrons together, edge to 
>edge, they 
>> form a larger octahedron with 8 tetrahedron voids centered on its 
>triangular 
>> surfaces -- yet the larger octahedron still has 6 outer apex points 
>and 1 
>> center point (=7). This multiplication of octahedrons inscribed in 
>spheres 
>> can be extended indefinitely until one as large as the physical 
>universe is 
>> reached -- that still has 7 primary "chakra" points defining its 
>analogous 
>> spherical shape. Thus the universe can have a near infinite 
>multiplicity of 
>> analogous 7 fold entities between the zero-point and its maximum 
>spherical 
>> extension in metric space. 
>> 
>> Should one be capable of conjointly using the dual mental powers, 
>and has 
>> found the "Master within," its a relatively simple matter to 
>visualize the 
>> connections between the primary seven fold divisions and all the 
>other 
>> decimal and duodecimal divisions chosen by the different schools of 
>mystical 
>> and magical teachings. 
>> 
>> Consequently, it might be added, the historical view of trying to 
>understand 
>> mystical teachings by literally interpreting the words, names or 
>descriptions 
>> used to explain the metaphysical powers, fields, planes, divisions, 
>field 
>> effects, etc., by various teachers or schools, is fraught with 
>danger... In 
>> that it confuses the mind, and causes one to either accept the most 
>> comfortable interpretation that fits in with ones own prejudices, 
>> preconceptions, and prior conditionings -- or totally deny the 
>possibility 
>> that such transcendental field divisions exist at all. 
>> 
>> As HPB teaches, the entire system of metaphysical thought can be 
>considered 
>> and understood from a logical, scientific basis -- whose 
>prerequisite is an 
>> entirely open, unconditioned, and equally balanced intuitive and 
>rational 
>> mind, as well as a thorough understanding and correlation of the 
>three 
>> fundamental principles or propositions -- which should come long 
>before a 
>> comparative study of the different religious and mystery schools' 
>limited 
>> concepts of metaphysical truths (that are beyond the capabilities 
>of ordinary 
>> linear, or left brain linguistic thinking to interpret or 
>understand 
>> esoterically). It's a fact that the Universe involves and evolves 
>from the 
>> zero-point through nonlinear processes... And, therefore, with 
>linear 
>> thinking, it is impossible to see the reality of its inner nature --
> other 
>> than the shadows it projects on the wall of (it's third level down) 
>> phenomenal matter and metric space.
>> 
>> LHM
>