Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00064)

Oct 10 2002

Dear Reed:

Many thanks for a though-producing odyssey -- a review of some
fundamental ideas. FIRE ? What next ?

May I observe having, like you, studied both science and theosophy: I
am sure Leon can add a lot to this.

Much of our education in Science concerns itself with experimental
discovery of the laws and qualities that Nature has laid in place.
These all relate to PHYSICAL MATTER. We know of no other kind except
through dreams (see below), and using our imagination visualize the
whole of manifestation as a huge congeries of electro-magnetic force
fields impinging on each other at all places.

Our physical matter is then the result of these forces in constant
motion --as though we were confronted with many kinds of fans moving
at various speeds, and either letting us perceive through them, or
their motion stops and obstructs our probing. This is of course
simplistic, yet there is a value to it, as it requires rethinking such
matters as : How did this begin? What keeps it in Motion? How is
stability achieved? Can we trust the Laws we see or have deduced to
remain stable ? Are the conditions we register on Earth equally
applicable to bodies in the depths of space, or is there only an
analogetic resemblance ( see S D I 142-3 ).

So we may be dealing with various grades and kinds of substance or
matter. Theosophy suggests this (see S D I 200 diagram).

As I read in theosophy we have several synonymous terms for what we
call in Science "gravity"-- such as attraction and cohesion. These
all involve motion and stability. The question is whether the motion
of the atoms is eternal and invariable. Also is our aperture of
examination in, say the past 300 years, adequate as a time period to
make generalizations ?

As most of our pre-history does not include scientific reports, haw
accurate can extrapolations into possible pasts be accurate? And even
so, why are they necessary ?

In one place speaking of the 7 principles of Man, H P B says that they
are in coadunition, but not consubstantial. [S D I 166 ] In other
words their substance is different from the MATERIAL, GROSS matter we
deal with when we are awake. (As an example, our dreams bring us
memories of dealing with an infinitely plastic "dream" substance
which we mold instantly to our fancy, thought or will. What this is,
remains to be explained. Perhaps it is a memory we retain sometimes
of astral or psychic substance ?)

In another place H P B writes to Sinnett that the Master was writing
an essay on the question of "gravity." This was to be published in
LUCIFER. She mentioned there that is was only half a law.

Basically she says we are dealing with two forces that ought to
balance : attraction and repulsion. [S D I 513, 525, 604]

We can see our difficulty here on Earth's surface where the force of
attraction seems to overpass any repulsive force due to proximity with
the attractive pole. {We can experiment with a very strong bar
magnet, and see for ourselves how polarized magnetic filings act. In
THEOSOPHIST, Vol. I, p.55-57 we find described GARY'S MAGNETIC MOTOR,
which makes use of this curious law. The proximity of the cursor to
the magnetic pole is critical I found in repeating those experiments.
Its thickness was also a factor.}

H P B mentions the duality of this force in S D I 102, 259, 293,
525, 478-91, 497-9, 500-6, 511, 513, 529-30, 604.

The ultimate causes are discussed in S D I 14, 69-70, 116, 514-7,
530, 145-6, 592. II 450 (sat and asat), 240, 580.

In dealing with chemical substances and the various salts and
elements, one notices the extraordinary power of attraction and
repulsion acting, depending on the attempt to make combinations and/or
salts. The laws of these reactions are found expressed as valence,
and the absolute refusal of certain molecular and atomic unions. The
Scientists have different views on this subject S D I 482-3, 497-8,
507, 509fn, 538,

Keely in consideration of the strange laws that his "motor" and
"force' evoked, says that "cohesion" (and repulsion) are large factors
(S D I 559, 565).

H P B hint this is related to Kundalini-sakti -- a force directed and
controlled with the mind. (S D I 293) This necessitates a close
examination theosophically, of the powers and actions of the dual
Mind. It takes out of the realm of physics and the matter we are
accustomed to, into metaphysical realms. We find in the S D in Vol. I
that H P B deals with the re-emergence of the Universe into Cosmic
space and a resumption of interrupted pilgrimages for all beings
involved. Then in Vol. II, H P B takes up our Earth and its
development from spiritual substance down to the physical matter we
all know and deal with. Of course our Science has just barely shown
signs of touching and contacting astral matter in recent experiments.

Theosophy teaches that Revolution, vortical motion, appears to induce
attraction and "gravity" S D I 117, 567-9, 579, 670,

One of the observations to be made in connection with all matter is
that there is incessant spiral, circular, cyclic and vibratory motion.
The S D says this is imparted at the time of re-manifestation and that
all Monads and Atoms share in this eternal ceaseless whirling,
vortical motion, whether metaphysically or physically. The impulse is
always from WITHIN : SECRET DOCTRINE I 274. also: S D I 116-7,
201, 240fn,

See SECRET DOCTRINE for other references on this vast subject: I
3, 14, 43, 55-6, 116-7, 258, 497, 529-30, 604, II 80, 240, 273
545; 551, 719,

The few cases of observed "levitation" that are recorded are not
sufficiently documented to make the actual conditions that prevailed a
matter of scientific study. They are anomalies. But they leave
question marks. How so?

Anti-gravity has always attracted study, but methods of overcoming the
general attractive force of "mass" (gravity) have so far revolved
around the very strong electro-magnetic forces which large currents
produce. How the mind of man might act to produce levitation is a
mystery, scientifically.

Considering Hawking: His mathematical speculations and constructs are
marvelous, but it is not a "god" that serves to jump-start
manifestation, but the force of a previous manifestation that is
carried forward. H P B explains this using the relation between our
Earth and Moon in the 1st. Vol. of the S D.

The analogy of FIRE has been used in all. the ancient scriptures to
illustrate the bridge between MIND UNIVERSAL and the manifested
substances that permit evolution of mind through matter to proceed in
an orderly and reasonable fashion. Science cannot account for, or
explain fire: S D I 121, 141-2, 521,

Fire is held to preside over Time: S D I 86;
it is aether in its purest form S D I 87;
it is the FIRST after the ONE S D I 69-70, 120-1, 216, 250, 253,
259, 338, 447, 493, II 79, 102, 373;
there is a "spiritual fire" S D II 79, 105, 109, 113,
The 3rd Race could live in fire: S D II 220.
The fire of the Central Spiritual Sun is triple: S D I 87, II 114,
267.


The analogy of the resolution of the several "slinkys" is an excellent
one, but can we visualize the complexity of a universe full of those?
No wonder one has to resort to "String theory."

I just posted (yesterday) a short essay on the place played by the
MONAD in evolution, perhaps some of the answers are there, in any case
it might be re-read.

Best wishes, and many thanks Reed,

Dallas




==============================



-----Original Message-----
From: Reed
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:06 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] Math and reality

Glad to see all the agreement we have.

To make a reply it may be convenient to start with gravity.

You asked about the extend we may really understand gravity. Leon may
know
more on this than I do. At one point science was talking about
"gravitons". While I don't know about those things, they strike me as
a
likely candidate for naming a thing but not understanding it. Now
with the
recently developed string theory, and its cousin membrane theory, the
law
of gravity has been derived from deeper mathematics. This is a major
success of physics. It means the laws of gravity disappear and are
replaced with something more fundamental. From the viewpoint of
physics
that is a major conceptual step in "understanding". Science deserves
credit for it. However, my own estimate of string and membrane theory
is
that it is still tentative. I would not want to draw any heavy
conclusions
from it. Leon may have a better opinion.

(BTW Lenny, I think there is something in the Mahatma Letters saying
the
universe is ten or 11 dimensional. If so, doesn't this jive with
string
theory and represent a dramatic confirmation of the knowledge of the
Mahatmas?)

A question arises: if science can effectively derive the laws of
gravity
from much prior more fundamental considerations, and if physics
explains so
much else with its equations then is there much left to be "not
understood"? A Theosophist would say there is more that is not
understood. At the very least, the material plane is only one plane.
And
according to Theosophy the laws of physics are "intelligent".

But can we find a materialistic scientist also suggesting a lack of
full
understanding? To this end you may enjoy a story about Steven
Hawking -
though you may have heard it already.

To bring others up to speed on this, Hawking is a very brilliant and
famous
astrophysicist living in our time. You may have seen pictures of him
relatively incapacitated in his wheel chair. I think the disease he
has is
Lou Gehrig (spelling) disease. He can hardly communicate with the
external
world due to lack of ability to move and talk. He does enormous
amounts of
abstract mathematical calculations in his head.

One of Hawkings issues is to see how far he can go in explanatory
power
with his equations alone before invoking "God". Indeed, he goes very
far. But toward the end of one of his popularizing books he reached
the
final question "Who put the fire into the equations?" Indeed, he
found
mystery left at the end of the chain of reasoning. And he had to
express
it poetically to convey his point! Is that not standing at the edge
of a
Theosophical view of the universe.

Let me try to express it a little more prosaically. Why should the
universe follow equations? This is a profound question and physicists
who
think about these things know it. Similarly, why should the equations
be
binding? Another profound question. But Hawking, I think, says it
better,
Who put the fire into the equations?

To stimulate the minds of college students in mathematics I have asked
them, "Does this mean there is a reality out there of a mathematical
kind
that is superior to, prior to, the physical world? Was Plato right in
his
idea of abstract forms?"

A word on karma. From the material Dallas quoted on Karma, we might
notice
item 3 in this context. Judge is saying "Karma is an undeviating and
unerring tendency in the Universe to restore equilibrium, and it
operates
incessantly." This has always seemed to strike me more than others -
perhaps because of my background in physics. Usually we think in
terms of
action-reaction. But here, karma is expressed as an "unerring
tendency to
restore equilibrium". This sounds somehow more dynamic and flexible
than
the first formulation.

This relates to physics but in a way that is obscure. The
conservations
laws (think action-reaction) of physics can be re-expressed in another
form
that is more dynamic in its mathematical form (relating to derivatives
for
those who know this term). So just as Theosophy has an
"action/reaction"
form and a "tendency toward equilibrium" form for formulating the law
of
karma, so also does physics, roughly speaking, have a "conservatory"
and a
"dynamic" form of the same fundamental law.

I am a little hesitant to make further parallels to physics because
that is
not the normal subject matter of this list. But maybe I will do just
a
little to expand on your point that if karma is viewed as a static law
then
a separate law of evolution must be somehow joined.

I will make up a simple analogy from physics. Imagine tieing together
several slinkys (coils of springs played with by children). Then toss
that
collection into the air and at the last moment give it a major flick
of the
wrist. We expect it to go through more or less chaos as the springs
expand
and contract and the whole flies through the air. But the physicist
sees
not chaos but order.

The order comes in this way. There is always a center of gravity of
the
combined mass of the wriggling springs. That center of gravity is
following a very smooth path - though we may not notice it! The
center of
gravity is following the same smooth path that would be followed by a
simple stone that had been similarly tossed through the air! The
final
action that we see is a combination of a conservation law (that keeps
the
springs wriggling out and back) and a law of motion (for the center of
gravity).

What this analogy is intended to show is that it is natural for a
physicist
to conceive of combining a law of conservation and a law of motion.
So it
is natural for me to conceive of a law of karma and a law of evolution
as
two separate laws working together. (No doubt, this may explain why I
see
things as I do while others may see them differently.)

Of course this leaves other questions. What is the nature of the law
of
evolution or progress? In what way does it relate to the law of
karma?

Reed





---
You are currently subscribed to bn-study as: [dalval14@earthlink.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-study-6660817A@lists.lyris.net