Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00025)

In a message dated 10/30/02 8:01:29 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Sorry, I accidentally sent this post to Theos-1 as well.
>
>This is in response to Leon's post: "re 'for themselves,'"
>which is at the end of this post.
> 
>Having received permission from Gerald S. to post his 
>comments here, this following from him seems relevant, in 
>a sense, as I see it, to what might be seen as the role and 
>potential of various forms of human or manasic thought, 
>dicrimination, intuition, speculation as applied toward the 
>topics of duality, maya, and non-duality. Quoting from 
>Gerald:
>
><<<The Zen Master would point to the moon, and then 
>warn his students not to mistake the finger pointing to the 
>moon for the moon itself. Our mental images and 
>cnceptualizations are like pointing fingers. Have you ever 
>tasted a peach? If so, you can probably write a verbal
>description of the taste of a peach that was pretty accurate. 
>But what would your description mean to someone who 
>had never tasted a peach? It would just be words. If 
>someone else who had also tasted a peach read your 
>description they might say, "Aha, he knows." This is 
>because verbal descriptions of experiential knowledge 
>make sense to those who have also had those
>experiences. But those folks who have not had the actual 
>experience will make no sense of it. They will, at best, try 
>to form mental conceptions of it, and will likely think that 
>they understand perfectly. As with the taste of a
>peach, so spiritual experiences have to be experienced in 
>order to be understood. We all experience duality, but 
>nonduality remains a concept until it is experienced.
>We see a tree, for example, and we think that a real thing 
>or object exists externally to and independent of us. 
>Actually there is no such thing as a tree per se. What we 
>really see are billions of parts arranged into a certain shape
>that we name, by convention, "tree." The very lack of 
>"treeness," or "thingness" is what Buddhism calls 
>emptiness. We posit that a "tree" exists based on the shape 
>of those parts. But no tree as such exists. We can continue
>in this vein, for all objects whatsoever. None have any real 
>"thingness" to them, but are simply collections of parts 
>arranged into shapes and given names. All phenomena are 
>empty of "thingness" or "suchness." This is also true
>of "persons." This dependent interconnecting network of 
>parts and names forms our conditional reality. The fact that 
>there is nothing "real" to anything at all forms our ultimate 
>reality. If we look at Blavatsky's 7-plane model of the
>universe, conditional reality includes the lower four planes, 
>and ultimate reality includes the upper three planes. Thus 
>our entire universe is one where phenomena effortlessly 
>rise up in dependence on causes and conditions, dance
>for awhile, and then recede back to their origin. And what 
>is this origin? It is the Ground of all manifestation, the 
>Source of both matter and spirit, of both conditional reality 
>and ultimate reality. It is often called nonduality.
>Blavatsky called it Beness. This Beness is ineffable, as 
>ineffable as the taste of a peach, or the beauty of sunset, or 
>the emptiness of a tree. It can be experienced, but 
>descriptions of it are simply conceptualizations that are 
>meaningful to those who have already experienced it and 
>meaningless to those who have not. Jerry S.>>>>
>============end of quote

All well and good as far as the teachings of the Buddha goes. But remember, 
he was only trying to teach his students (in a basically unscientific and non 
technological age) the futility of hanging on to constantly changing and 
temporary things. His purpose was to instill the value of detachment from the 
forms of matter in his disciples and the recognition that each individual, as 
an apparently separate conscious being was, in fact, unchanging and in 
essential oneness or unity with the primal source of all consciousness. 
Nevertheless, he also said "Nothing comes from nothing" which means that 
there is a fundamental reality out of which everything springs, evolves, 
changes, and eventually, is drawn back into the primal source. 
Unfortunately, Buddha did not have the means to logically and scientifically 
explain that to his students in metaphysical or physical terms that they 
could understand -- as HPB was able to do in the 19th Century -- and as we 
are much more able to do now. 

Therefore, the tree one sees and can touch, although slowly changing from 
moment to moment, nevertheless is as real and existent (albeit temporarily) 
as is the reality and existence of the one who perceives it. In either case 
there is a definite, logical, and scientifically consistent process of cause 
and effect which brings these "things" into existence, energizes them, 
enables their growth, flowering, eventual decay, and ultimate death of their 
physical forms -- while enabling their spiritual consciousness to return to 
the source with its accumulated knowledge. . . To spring forth again and 
again on the next cycles of their evolution toward higher and higher 
knowledge and awareness of their ultimate oneness with the permanent all, as 
well as the impermanance of all material things. In theosophical terms, this 
is the true nature of the relationship between Mahatma and atma. which, 
together, are eternally part of the primal source of all being. Not only does 
nothing come from nothing, but nothing is ever lost, -- whether in or out of 
manifestation or forms or bodies. the only illusion then is the illusion of 
separatemess.

This logical and scientifically explainable process of the involution and 
evolution of consciousness and matter, which are forever non separable and a 
unity in duality, is what we (the theosophical student/teachers -- starting 
with HPB, who only had the bare beginning of modern science at her command) 
are interested in helping others (who are already steeped in the advanced 
scientific knowledge of this age) to learn and understand. In doing so, we 
all can become better able to comprehend the true nature of reality, 
eliminate the ineffableness of the primal source (which, in the past ages has 
forced the teachers to rely on authority, revelation, and faith) -- but which 
now can be explained logically and scientifically from the basis of the 
knowledge we have today of the objective nature of primal force in all its 
forms and permutations... This unified force, from Cosmic energy to mass 
energy, gravity to electricity, that must have had a beginning in an eternal 
source of infinite momentum ("spinergy" or "abstract motion") and that must 
forever be conserved, regardless of its changeable states of existence. 
However if we consider that "ineffable" means that we cannot explain the 
experience of consciousness, like we cannot explain the color of a rose, I 
agree with Gerald. But, if it means that we cannot explain the "root" of 
consciousness as being the inherent nature of the zero-points of empty space, 
and the root of matter being the abstract motion (or spinergy) surrounding it 
-- I beg to differ. 

>As I see it, one cannot transcend mayavic reality by any 
>amount of mayavic/dualistic reasoning. That is, while 
>Theosophy may be seen to have value and wisdom, those 
>are, after all, the dualistic/exoteric aspects or "versions" of 
>reality/truth (not that such aspects are any less real within 
>that context). As I see it, Leon, your models/values can 
>optionally be seen as containing "correctness" in them (as 
>per whatever current or traditional logical/interpretive 
>tendency in dualistic terms), but, at the same time, in as 
>much as such models/values are dualistic, they are also 
>mayavic . . . 

"Mayavic" only in the sense that they have no "consistent" reality, since 
time flows on constantly and everything objective is changing its "state" of 
existence from moment to moment, as is the contents of our minds and 
memories. Nevertheless, to those of us in that same state of existence in 
each moment of time, these objects of both matter and thought continue to be 
as real as we are (with respect to our marvelous bodies, minds and memories, 
and their inherent self consciousness as an individualized zero-point ray of 
the primal consciousness or Supreme Spirit). 

Mayavic, then, doesn't mean that the physical existence of things are 
illusions (in the sense that they have no inherent reality) -- but that our 
belief in them as being permanent is an illusion. This distinction is very 
subtle and is the source of much confusion among students of theosophy as 
well as Buddhism. On the cosmic plane, those momentary realities, as ideal 
forms, also must exist, in relative permanence, as holographic patterns in 
the higher order consciousness fields, as well as in the original 
holographically modulated "spinergy" -- out of which these higher order 
fields are emanated. 

Thus, the universal consciousness or Cosmic awareness never forgets such 
"ideal" forms or patterns of things as they are -- which accounts for the 
repetition of these forms upon each of its serial awakenings out of pralaya. 
Such archtypal "memories" bound up in the spinergy of the primal zero-point 
singularity (that, when manifest, is "everywhere" with its field 
circumferences "nowhere") is what theosophy refers to as "Laya points." Such 
points contain all the "informative" knowledge or information, as holographic 
interference patterns of abstract motion, angular momenta, or "spinergy," 
necessary to reconstruct all the formerly evolved forms of the universe in 
their original placements in the overall extended dimensional space of the 
new manvantara. (Like our genes, located in every cell of the body, contains 
the encoded energy fields necessary for the construction of the entire body.) 
Thus, theosophy can teach that "consciousness involves while matter evolves" 
or, that consciousness in-forms while matter out-forms. There is nothing 
"speculative" in this conception of ultimate reality -- that must always be a 
duality within a unity, or a trinity, based on the fundamental laws of cycles 
and periodicity. Therefore, "as above, so below" is a fundamental 
theosophical law of nature. There's nothing specularive in this.

>As I see it, in order for Theosophists, or people in general, 
>to acquire more and more meaningful intuitive or 
>speculative or thoughtful means of "bridging towards" (at 
>least) some kind of "esoteric (as opposed to 
>exoteric/theoretical) sense" or appreciation, by way of 
>whatever clues or means, (that might be apparent, real, 
>logical, interpretive, speculative, experiential, etc) "about 
>the bigger picture" (in terms of "logical Theosophy" or in 
>whatever interpretive/intuitive terms), then, as I see it, 
>such bridging might in some cases be somewhat facilitated 
>by a certain kind of freedom of thought that 
>(alternatively?) might be seen as related to speculation . . . 

First off, "intuitive" and "speculative" do not have the same definition. 
Intuition is the means we use to mentally grasp the fundamental meaning of 
the teachings. Speculation can only lead us off into unrelated areas of 
thought. The only freedom of thought we have (as far as the study of t
heosophy goes) is to think along consistently logical lines based on the 
irrefutable "Fundamental Principles" of theosophy -- which must be accepted 
as a priori propositions before we make judgements about the validity of the 
teachings that follow. Any other course would be purely speculative and 
could not be considered as part of a "study of theosophy" per se. (Although, 
you could probably get some interesting plots for science fiction and fantasy 
stories out of it..:-) 
>
>But if one's basic freedom of thought and speculativeness 
>are discouraged for what er reason, how can one 
>ascertain anything "more meaningfully" ("for better or 
>worse") for oneself and more-directly address one's karma 
>. . . I tend to see our speculations as karmic carry-overs of 
>the kind that, if left unaddressed, will keep on festering, in 
>a sense, like a sore. I tend to see Theosophy, for example, 
>as expressive of both current and traditional karmic 
>(carry-over) meaning of the kind that, if addressed with 
>mere logic (dualisticity) will keep on festering, carrying 
>over in the form of dualisticity, and so, in (some cases?), a 
>somewhat more oblique or abstract or speculative method 
>might, as I see it, be seen as having a "more relevant role," 
>(within the confines of one's attempts to gain a certain 
>helpful perspective toward duality, traditional logic, and 
>maya), as compared to what might be seen as the use of a 
>logic that's more linear, traditional, mainstream, "more 
>apparently reliable," etc. 

Speculativeness, when considering theosophy is discouraged, but freedom of 
thought has nothing to do with that. No matter what speculations you make, 
the fundamental ideas of theosophy will remain as the true basis of universal 
Cosmogenesis and be the principles underlying both its involution and its 
evolution. Therefore, the laws of karma, cycles, and periodicity and all the 
other ideas pertaining to consciousness and matter that spring out of them 
cannot be changed... Although we can certainly think and argue about them -- 
provided we can come up with a better system upon which to base the reality 
we experience. This, however, would mean creating new fundamental 
principles, along with an entirely new teaching that would be consistent with 
the laws of science (as proven to be valid) -- and thereby denying theosophy 
altogether. (Which then would require us to give the system a new name and 
setting up our own school on another network.:-) Much of present day 
reductive science attempts to do just that. But, they don't normally choose 
this forum to present their arguments. 

Right now, however, we are talking about theosophy, as presented in the SD, 
which, while offered as a theory, is totally consistent with our observed and 
experienced reality. Therefore, speculation along those lines just doesn't 
fit in with the teachings that are straightforward and direct to the point. 
Although, its perfectly reasonable to speculate on such so called 
theosophical matters and opinions such as, mahatma letters or religious con
cepts (that are not presented as "fundamental" metaphysical truths). 

>I tend to see potential in certain kinds of speculations as a 
>means by which one might gain a certain "alternative 
>perpsective," say, towards maya and the straight jackets of 
>traditional logic, worldviews, duality. But whether the 
>"addressing of one's speculations" will yield much or little 
>in the way of a helpful alternative perspective is, of course, 
>a highly individual, or self-confrontational matter. If 
>Theosohy is studied and believed in in its literal sense, on 
>the other hand, that approach might, in many cases (?), 
>seem more relevant than a speculativeness that might seem 
>less realistic, hard to pin down, abstract, unreliable, 
>illogical, etc. . .

There is no "alternative perspective" other than the perspective of seeing 
the universe from the inside out and the outside in, simultaneously, and 
having both the inward progressions of logical *involution* meet with the 
outward progressions of logical *evolution* in the middle. At the same time, 
the paradoxes must be resolved between emptiness and fullness, one and many, 
zero and infinity, light and darkness, etc., as unity's in duality's. 
Theosophy (with respect to its metaphysical teachings) cannot be believed "in 
it's literal sense" -- that is its "dead letter" -- but must be understood 
directly, in its figurative sense alone. And, that can only be done if one 
studies it thoroughly, reads in and around the words and between the lines, 
and comprehends its inherent consistency and logic. So, as you admit, since 
speculation could be "less realistic, hard to pin down, abstract, unreliable, 
illogical, etc." -- one must keep it to oneself until all that 
inconclusiveness can be resolved in one's own mind. Otherwise, all it can do 
is add to everyone else's confusion -- not to mention get them pissed off 
with incessant speculative and ambivalent ramblings. 

Most likely :-),
LHM


>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>=======================================
>
>Oct 29 Leon wrote:
>
><<<Thinking for oneself about the validity of theosophical 
>teachings has nothing to do with interpretation, nor is there 
>anything speculative about theosophy. 
>
>Its metaphysical teachings are a complete system, sui 
>generis in itself, that either is or is not the way the universe 
>must (by dependence on fundamental principles that are 
>unassailable) have involved and evolved. 
>
>In no way does this theory -- starting from the zero-point 
>"spinergy" (absolute abstract motion), and progressing 
>logically and mathematically according to fundamental 
>laws of "electricity," cycles, and periodicity to its present 
>state -- contradict any of the theories of reductive or 
>empirical science (that are based solely on the final 
>objective/physical phase of universal Cosmogenesis). In 
>fact, beginning with relativity and quantum physics and 
>extending to their final synthesis in Superstring/M-brane 
>mathematics, theosophy has completely anticipated and 
>presaged all these theories. 
>
>Therefore, after careful thinking about their inherent 
>reasonableness, one can either accept the theosophical 
>metaphysical concepts as they are presented, or come up 
>with another theory that is equally consistent based on 
>those same principles or propositions. There is no other 
>choice -- except skeptical denial based on false beliefs, 
>ignorance or thoughtlessness. 
>
>Since theosophy, through its metaphysical processes, has 
>demonstrated the inherent unity of all beings in the 
>universe, all further conclusions relating to the laws of 
>karma, the eternality of consciousness and temporality of 
>matter, along with the inherent justice that prevails with 
>respect to the willful actions of conscious human beings 
>that alter the harmony of universal causation, follows by 
>logical deduction. To speculate at this level of 
>understanding, is an exercise in futility that leads us 
>nowhere (either from a subjective or objective point of 
>view) toward a better understanding of the true nature of 
>reality. 
>
>Thinking for oneself, therefore, must follow logical 
>progressions of cause and effect that lead to concrete 
>conclusions and firm convictions. Otherwise 
>one gets lost in a maelstrom of inconclusiveness and 
>confusion.
>
>Absolutely,
>LHM>>>>> 
>
>PS I tend to agree with you Leon, in a sense . . . But just 
>"in a sense"

>