re to Gerald, Leon . . .
Nov 10, 2002 09:59 AM
by Mauri
Gerald wrote: <<Let me explain the above for just a
moment. Blavatsky tells us that one of our primal
dualities is Space and Motion (and this can also be found
in Dzogchen). One of the main rules of dualities is that
you can't have one without the other -- they go together
as a pair of opposite polarites and each depends on
the other for meaning. Now this is easy for me to see
when I think of Motion depending on Space, because
obviously Motion requires Space in which to move
around. But the idea that Space depends on/requires
Motion is not obvious to me. It is easy for me to conceive
of Space without any Motion, just pure empty motionless
Space. But if the law of dualities holds, then this is just a
mental concept, and is not what is really going on. In
reality, there is no Space without Motion in it. >>
But/"but" . . . ^:-) . . . "Space"? "Motion"? I'm trying to
figure out . . . or at least trying get some kind of handle,
in some way, (for the sake of this kind of discussion,
say?), on what might be "intentionally meant," (by some
people, not excluding myself?), in that context, by "space
and motion."
Anyway, what comes to mind---or "my mind," as they
say---(and of course "your mind," Gerald, might . . .
whatever):
"Space." I tend to see it as a mayavic, conditional,
relational medium-aspect of duality, or of dualistic
perception or worldview. Not inseparable, or existing
apart from, the parameters of a "individual/collective"
worldview, which in itself, being mayavic (being a
temporary/conditional "reality"), is held together, or
made "realistic enough," by the karmaself
"inter-reactiveness" (or exoteric version) that we call
awareness, life, reality. In broader terms, I tend to see
"space" as being representative of the "freedoms" by
which various karmaself processes can occur: such
"freedoms" being expressive of such as: room to
maneuver, time to think, opportunities to create,
modelize, speculate, study, Theosophize, learn,
spiritualize, etc, etc.
In other words, I wonder if "space" plays a key role in
why we're here in this duality world: could there have
been some kind of adoption of this "duality life" at some
point "in the past": possibly (?) so as to experience (and
learn from, in some way?) a dualistic "space/motion"
experience that's Contrasting (dualistic) in essence, and
thereby, (more importatly?), offering "freedoms per
karmaself"---no matter how mayavic such "freedoms"
might have been recogized as from, say, a "former and
more Unific (or "non-dualistic") perspective? . . .
("former" is meant as a space/motion contrast view as
per the mayavic freedom of the karmaself reality).
<<It would also probably help if students realized that
there is intellectual knowledge and experiential
knowledge, and that the two are different. Most students
are very content with the intellectual, worrying for
example over the "original" written words Blavatsky
might have used. Why? Because of a possible nuance in
meaning. They fail to realize that once one gains
experiential knowledge, the meanings of words become
very apparent, and one KNOWS what Blavatsky is
saying. >>
Yes, and then there was that Zen master, eh, who said
something about not mistaking his finger pointing at the
moon for the moon itself.
M<<<<<For example, why is it that when I read many of
Leon's posts, I tend to feel that his scientizing comes
across to me as if he doesn't realize that, while modeling
might be a nice hobby, that's not, after all, what
Theosophy is more realistically about. I see Theosophy
as a medium by which one might in some way transcend
dualistic notions not by creating more of
dualistic/exoteric modeling, but by reading between the
lines of one's world, as opposed to getting trapped by
them . . .>>>
G <<Oh oh, you are turning into a wolf...no no I don't
want to go there...>>
Hmm. Is that wolfishness as in huffing and puffing in
order to blow someone's house down? And I was under
the impression that neither you, Gerald, nor Leon, were
old and feeble granny's, anyway, to begin with, so . . .
And don't you guys have your houses and models built
with bricks, or at least with something sturdy enough
(like "wisdom and Theosophics" . ..?) . . . ? Anyway,
now you got me speculating about what wolfishness
might mean, and (if I ever manage to figure anything
much about that) I'll be likely trying to figure out about
various ways that people might see wolfishness in various
things.
<<Nothing wrong with modeling so long as we are aware
that it is just a model, one of many possible models. I
wonder if Leon gives us his initial assumptions...I wonder
if Leon even knows that his models all have initial
unprovable assumptions... The Theosophical community
has two camps; one sees it as a set of "core teachings"
and the other sees it as a process or Path. The former
group are content with intellectual knowledge. The latter
group see the intellectual knowledge as a bridge to
experiential knowledge. >>>>>
I tend to think/speculate likewise . . . apparently . . .
<<The Theosophical "core teachings" or "original
writings" are themselves creative, and one needs to read
most of them between the lines as well. >>
I tend to think/speculate likewise, but I wonder how
Leon, Dallas, etc., might take that kind comment from
you, Gerald. Apparently Leon doesn't even subscribe to
this list.
M<<<But I suspect that as long as Theosophists confine
their studies and attitudes within certain literalistic
guidelines (which approach may, of course, be perfectly
appropritate for some Theosophists, in consideration of
where they're at, "on their Path" . . .), then such literalism
will confine their studies, might even tend to keep them
from as much speculating about whatever transcendent
aspects/relevance they might be inclined to at least
speculate about if they were less hampered, brainwashed,
hypnotized by their current worldview.>>>
G<<OoohhhKaaaayyy. There is not one of us who write
"outside the box" so to speak, where the "box" is our
own worldview. Writing outside of one's own
worldview is nothing more or less than parroting
someone else's words without understanding them, and
this usually gets us into trouble. People with narrow
minds, minds that are already made up, cannot allow for
speculation and "what ifs." On the other hand, too much
speculative openess isn't going to help usmuch
either...How about a balance?>>
Good answer, I tend to think . . . (especially that
"ooohhhKaaaayyy" part). But (!), kindly note, though,
that I used the word "appropitate," instead of
"appropriate"!
M<<< If Theosophy is seen in terms of reasoning that
unifies "self" and "other people," >>>
G<<We will never ever become unified people through
"reasoning." Raise consciouness into the spiritual planes
and directly experience the unity and oneness of our
human life-wave, and then and only then will our unity
be apparent.>>
Okay. I meant "reasoning" as per an "exoteric version."
<<Karma has to have a self or being of some kind upon
which to function, or it can't function at all. The
idea/concept of "my karma" has to have a "my" or it
doesn't hold up (ie karma assumes that an I exists). The
teaching of freedom from karma lies in the realization
that we have no "self" upon which any karma can work.
Now this is one of those "dangerous" teachings, because
it could give children the wrong idea that they can do
anything they want with impunity. So this kind of
teaching is not usually given to children. But the
anatman doctrine does not say that there is no atman, but
rather that there is no inherent permanent atman; it says
that atman is a conditional reality ---> and thus karma is
a conditional reality as well. (I am telling you this Mauri,
but please keep the above away from your children lest
they hurt themselves)>>
OK, mum's the word.
<<Do you realize how many lifetimes are required for us
to know experientially that we are not being hammered
on by others but rather are hammering ourselves? A
bunch.>>
But/"but" . . . what if some of us learned to speculate a
little more, maybe, about what makes for hammering of
self, to begin with . . . instead of assuming along with the
crowd about what's irrelevant and relevant . . .
Speculatively,
Mauri
PS Did I get you to look up "appropitate" in your
dictionary? Hee hee. Well, maybe it's in some
dictionary, somewhere, so . . .
PPS Gotta go. Maybe will speculate about "motion"
some other time . . .
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application