Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00790)

Leon wrote: <<Is the geometric center (zero-point) of a 
turning wheel moving linearly through phenomenal space 
in the same manner as is a point on the circumference -- 
or not? If not, is it in non linear, circular motion 
(spinning) -- or not? >>

I seem to generally respond to those kinds of 
words/concepts from a somewhat different angle than 
you, Leon. So my following comments might suggest to 
you that I avoided or didn't understand the issues that 
you might've seen youself as having been concerned 
about in that post.

Your "center/zero point" brought to mind the dualistics 
involved in reference making, in general, to begin with, 
amomg other things: in other words, to me, the concept 
of "center" implies the existence/creation (in terms of "a 
karmic variable," if you prefer . . .) of a dualistic medium 
of the kind that one can define/describe so as to posit a 
"center" into it; but surely HPB's references to a "center 
or zero point" had an esoteric aspect to them, as well, 
that no dualistic/literal interpretation, alone, would do 
justice to?

As I see it, in dualistic terms (what other kinds are there, 
one might ask, justifiably?): The concept of a center 
implies or posits---as per one's 
apparent/experiential/karmic/interpretive "sense of 
reality"---a medium of duality as the ground in which 
such references "can be made" and in which they would 
become/appear "real enough."

As I see it, a "center," by definition, within duality, (or 
within dualistic, manasic reference making), can ONLY 
exist within that dualistic paradigm/model, which is 
another way of saying that all "centers" in dualistic terms 
are mayavic, (as per the esoteric tradition), arising out of 
karmic "initial assumptions," which, in turn, relate back 
to, depend on, whatever karmic/dualistic engagements 
are "seen" (as per a manasic/karmic effect) to "have 
occurred" (as per "that kind" of mayavic, "logical 
progression") as "causative" within a linearity that 
(within that mayavic progression) literally has no 
beginning, no "real enough cause" and, being causeless 
other than in whatever interpretive/apparent 
comparative/dualistic terms, is extensively dependent on 
its "reality" on karma and duality; and so such centers 
are, therefore, in that sense, as I see it, mayavic (as per 
the esoteric tradition).

Not that I'm promoting some kind of out-of-hand 
negation of various dualistic versions, models, 
Theosophics. But/"but" . . .

And not that such short-comings (maya) seem to bother 
mainstreamers much in the sense that, generally, as I see 
it, most humans don't seem to ruminate much over basic 
unreality, aside from various particulars? As I see it, 
there's a mainstream, manasic tendency to follow the 
kind of "logic" (ie, relevance making within a 
"collectively agreed about worldview") that a 
collective/karmic/dualistic medium/ground would seem 
to give least resistance to, from whatever interpretive 
perspective.

I tend to see a basic aspect of "centers" in terms of the 
kind of "logical progressiveness" adopted and karmically 
engaged in by manas (that karmic/"logical" progressivity 
or evolving process lending itself to manasic defining in 
terms of "human senses"), so I tend to see 
"centers/centering" as suggestive of manasic products of 
perception supported/"influenced" by karma and duality 
to the extent that they have evolved into various realities, 
worlds, worldviews, sciences, and exoterics in general: ie, 
it's as if there's a parallel between centric/reductionistic 
(or karmic/interpretive) "manasic initial assumptions" 
and the perceived/apparent (mayavic) mainstream 
worldview.

My simpler explanation for the preceding: Watch out for 
those wooden nickels, eh!

<<Is the concept in our mind of the existence of the 
zero-point an "illusion" -- or not? Is EIN-SOPH a 
zero-point -- or not? >>

Since those are relational (dualistic, maya-related) 
questions, what's the point in asking them? 
Well . . . Anyway, I just offered my versions of 
answers for those kinds of questions, and for the 
following from the rest of your 
post, Leon:

<<Does the zero-point EXIST as the starting or 
"Absolute SPACE" of all emanation of the lines of force 
that involve into the seven fold coenergetic fields that are 
the changeable and temporary, yet cyclically repeating
playgrounds of all our states of consciousness in 
"phenomenal space"? -- or not? Are these states REAL 
when we experience them -- or not? Are the noumena of 
these states in the zero-point, REAL (i.e., existent) --
or not If all phenomena in the universe is subject to their 
opposites, is the emptiness of the zero-point the opposite 
of the fullness of its noumenal Force (or spinergy) as well 
as the fullness of the Cosmos (or mass/energy) -- or not?
Does the initial light that radiates out of the absolute 
zero-point travel much faster than the light (c) that 
radiates from of the physical "Big Bang" zero-point 
(Einstein's "singularity") -- or not? Is the Scientific, 
Philosophical, and Religious knowledge (as inseparable 
and interrelated, factual realities) i. e., knowing who and 
what we are, where we came from, where we are going, 
and how we get there, necessary to be thoroughly 
examined and understood intuitively in equal measure, or 
synthetically -- for theosophists or any followers of 
religious dogmas to achieve enlightenment, SELF 
realization, and attaining adeptship -- or not? Is the 
"Scientific" knowledge, verifying the unity of all things 
important as the foundation for theosophy's "Religious" 
(moral-ethical) convictions -- or not? LHM (P.S.; There's 
no need to answer these questions -- except to the
satisfaction of your higher Self -- who already knows. 
;-)>>>>>>>
==========end of quote

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Anyway, the preceding was my exoteric version.
For those who would prefer my esoteric treatment of the 
same, here's my helpful suggestion: just put quotes on all 
my words, and then read it again.

PPS Well, in a sense, I was kidding about the quotes for 
"my esoteric version," but, on second thought, (or first 
thought . . .) in a sense I wasn't kidding, so . . . ^:-) . . . 
I'm kind of alternately scratching my head and chuckling
(which is really nothing new, but/"but". . .).