Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00627)

Mauri,

So, (judging from your last paragraph) all your "speculating" seems to do is 
lead you around in circles. :-) 

No wonder why there are so few here who bother to read your personal 
ramblings, and even fewer who are willing to take the trouble to answer you. 
(Although, your writing does have some humorous aspects that kinda gave me a 
kick right from the beginning. :-) Perhaps, you might not be such a lost 
soul case after all -- if you would bother to really think things out about 
what Dallas and I are trying to say about the nature of reality (that should 
make sense, when taken from the same point of view they were written from) -- 
before you ramble on with your speculations -- that always seem to end up 
confusing you more than when you started out. But, then again, you may be 
the only serious theosophical student around here since your constant 
speculating and wandering wondering, like a bull in a china shop, means you 
haven't given up in your search for truth, or a way out of ignorance. (Or is 
it "head scratching"? :-) 

First off, maybe you should begin separating from each other all the words 
you hear (and use) -- determine their individual, stand alone meanings -- and 
then figure out what they mean when they are put into sentences that make 
sense (when one understands the point of view of the writer). For starters, 
you might try to understand that "theosophy," the "Theosophical Movement" and 
the "Theosophical Society" are three entirely different things (although they 
seem to be related to a common teaching). Each of these also have several 
facets or aspect of understanding. 

Theosophy, for example, also consists of three different (although 
interrelated) aspects or teachings -- since it is a "synthesis" of "science," 
"religion" and "philosophy." The reason this synthesis (or unity) is so 
difficult to grasp is that, separately these aspects face each other with 
paradoxes (or unresolved duality's). As a result, some of us 
student/teachers direct our learning and our teaching toward that particular 
aspect of theosophy that we have focused our concentration, interests and 
experience on (but not necessarily ignoring the other aspects with respect to 
our own personal "religious" practices -- which also are separate from, 
although interrelated with the "wisdom" and "knowledge" behind them). 

Dallas, for instance, to resolve these paradoxes, sees the broad view, but 
focuses on the philosophy and religion or "Heart Doctrine" and "delivers" 
theosophy from the point of view of the original teachers. While I, without 
ignoring the broad view, but with a similar aim of closing the paradoxical 
gaps, focus on the philosophical (metaphysical) and physical scientific 
correlation's. This doesn't mean that we are ignoring the "left-out" or 
"hidden" aspect in our respective discussions of theosophy -- which we always 
consider as the third leg that keeps theosophy as a unified teaching from 
falling to one side or the other. (I hope you understand what I mean by this 
analogy.) Unfortunately, there are some who see theosophy solely as a 
religion, others as a metaphysical science, and others as pure philosophy. In 
Buddhism, there are similar separations among its various sects. Therefore, 
one must be careful, to see all these different points of view, as parts of 
one great synthesis that is pure "theosophy" -- in spite of the paradoxes 
that face us when these views are considered separately or as dichotomies. 

So, maybe you have to realize that there are also several different ways at 
looking at all these different aspects of the "one composite reality" that we 
are considering. Perhaps, then, you might realize that the ALL isn't a 
singularity or a duality, neither is it one or many, nor something or nothing 
-- but it is all of them -- at once... And, depending on your point of view, 
they can also be considered as separate aspects of reality -- with the common 
thread of theosophical metaphysics holding these dichotomies together... For, 
within the trinity of the unity lies the duality -- which is what we 
experience when the ONE becomes separated into individual consciousness and 
matter, surrounded by the absolute consciousness of the ALL -- yet is still 
ONE triple unity that began from a "singularity (or zero-point + its 
"spinergy" which turns in two directions simultaneously and, thus, is a 
trinity)... Doesn't this also fit the ancient Hermetic and Vedic concepts of 
"as above, so below," "the music of the spheres," and Fohat as forming 
"wheels within wheels within wheels that turn first in one direction and then 
in the other"? 

Well, there it is in a nutshell. Doesn't this remind us of your kind of 
circular reasoning? (So, thanks for offering the opportunity of saying it 
just so. ;-) 

So, we can look at reality from the "outside in" or the "inside out," or as a 
"synthesis" of both views. In one case its a unity, and in the other a 
duality, and from the third a trinity. From one view, time, matter, 
consciousness appear to have beginnings and endings -- while from another, 
they have neither, but are forever of infinite duration, and can appear as 
both everything and nothing, emptiness and fullness, temporary and permanent. 
But from the synthetic view, they are all causally connected as the "One 
Thing/no thing" or "Absolute ALL." 

>From this we may realize that the Three objects of the Theosophical Movement, 
and the Three fundamental Principles are exactly in conformance with the 
three aspects of the theosophical synthesis, and include BOTH the "Heart 
Doctrine" and the "Head Doctrine" in perfect "synchronicity" or 
"consilience." (This new word means "a jumping together" or "the unity of 
knowledge - from the book by biologist Edward O. Wilson)

With that, I'll leave you to speculate in your own mind on the meaning of all 
I've said (in everything I've written to you and others) from my particular 
point of view (which you call "scientizing"). Only, remember, while I speak 
from the point of view of metaphysical science and philosophy, the 
"religious" or "yogic" and ethical/moral, or "Heart Doctrine" aspects are not 
left out -- but always there by inference on a deeper interrelational level. 

As my last bit of advice... If it helps, write down your thoughts 
(speculations if you will) from all three points of view, so you can spin out 
all your circles of reasoning, and see how they overlap with each other. 
Then, after your mind is clear, and you understand that you cannot know 
anything (except from any one of the three standpoints you look at it from) 
you can tear up all the writings (so you won't get as confused as we do when 
reading them :-) -- and begin sorting out in your mind the separation between 
your speculations and your intuitive and logical/reasonable conception of 
reality, and take it from there. Then, maybe, the next thing you can write 
to us is an interesting fantasy story that teaches (both yourself and 
ourselves) a lesson in theosophy that we all can understand (and can use it 
"to be better able to help and teach others" :-). . . 

Best Wishes,

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html

In a message dated 12/19/02 10:19:58 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<three objects of the Theosophical Movement...
>Namely, To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of 
>Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or 
>color; The study of ancient and modern religions, philosophies 
>and sciences, and the demonstration of the importance of such 
>study, and; The investigation of the unexplained laws of
>nature and the psychical powers latent in man. >>
>
>Reading that, it occurred to me that, while those objects seem 
>commendable enough, isn't there another, relevant enough 
>aspect of, or reason for, Theosophy that might be worth 
>mentioning, as per such as the cultivation of "spirituality" 
>(sorry, I can't seem to help sticking those quotes on that word, 
>weeing as it's been banged around so much, in my opinion) 
>along with an understanding about maya, esoteric/exoteric, etc, 
>in order to transcend karma, reincarnation, duality ... By 
>"spirituality" I'm referring to something like "a sense of 
>transcendence" by way of "the sensing of dualistic limits," say, 
>that one might acquire as a result of one's intuitive sense about 
>the mayavic/dualistic nature of ordinary/mainstream reality ... 
>Although there would seem to be various "follow-up aspects" of 
>"spirituality" in relation to manas in relation to buddhi in 
>relation to atma, etc ... and whatever ...
>
>Or is there a preference or tendency among many Theosophists 
>to ignore those aspects of Theosophics that have to do with its 
>(rather apparent?) esoteric roots, in favor of, say, scientizings, 
>literal studies, exoterics, etc, as if such hinayanics could be 
>somehow made to meaningfully enough shore up Theosophics 
>("in the meanwhile," say?) ... Not that I'm saying that there's 
>anything particularly surprising about the prevalence of such ... 
>'anics, but/"but"... After all, (one might suppose quite 
>pointedly?), if manas can't extend itself beyond karma, well ... 
>^:-) ... Or ... Not that ...
>
>I wonder if there are a number of people who have taken up an 
>interest in Theosophy because of some kind of impression that, 
>(unlike Mahayanics and its confusing "emptiness" that seems, in 
>simplistic terms, nihilistic?), Theosophy might seem as if it 
>offers a much more "understandable," ego-friendlier, more 
>sensible, more logical, (even somewhat scientific?), approach 
>toward . . . whatever ...
>
>The longer I think about that, and the longer I think about the 
>posts of people like Dallas, Leon, etc., ("etc" who?" uh ...) the 
>more apparent it would seem to me that there would seem to be 
>a split among those who have taken an interest in Theosophy; 
>that split apparently/theoretically (as I see it) consisting of two 
>poles of, say, "Theosophic evaluation" (with variations in 
>between, of course?):
>
>On the one hand there would seem to be the literalists and 
>die-hard promoters of all kinds of mainstream exoteric versions, 
>and, (going to the other extreme, skipping past the middle) there 
>would seem to be those who ... well, three dots might be 
>suggestion enough about that "other extreme" (no pun 
>intended) ... (Not that I'm claiming any kind of "k/Knowing" 
>about those dots for myself, seeing as I'm obviously a fairly new 
>student of Theosophy, and a speculator, to boot!)
>
>In other words, seems to me as if the general perception (there 
>being plenty of exceptions?) re Theosophy, today, might be 
>leaning toward the kind of approach and mentality that 's being 
>represented by Leon and Dallas in their posts ... IMHSO, while 
>such posts might be seen to have much commendable content, 
>(in terms of various rather overt exoterics, from my speculative 
>point of view ...), at the same time the "deeper" meaning of 
>Theosophy would seem to be ... well, if it's not really trampled 
>on, for the most part (?), it at least seems, from my present, 
>speculative perspective, overlooked ... Overlooked how? I 
>offered some speculation about that in my recent posts to Leon, 
>and in my posts on Theos-1, but if they don't explain enough, 
>well . . . that's as far as my current speculations seem to take me 
>... Yes, I know that I have a serious enough problem explaining 
>about my speculations around here. What can I say? 
>
>But, not to worry (?), one can always comfort oneself by 
>claiming that "it's all karma, after all" (?) ... or whatever ...
>Personally, I suspect that "karma" ought to not be taken for 
>granted that way, or any which way ... So ...
>
>In other words, (I did it again?), seems as if (in a sense?) I'm 
>back to where I started from ... ^:-) ... How did that happen ... 
>If I remember correctly, I started out this post wanting to chew 
>out ... well, wanting to point out a few things, but now, after all 
>that, seems as if I'm saying that everything and everybody is 
>somewhow "basically okay," after all, since ... what with ... 
>well, I don't know ... Gee, no wonder some people go sit in 
>remote caves to meditate?
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>
>PS ... ^:-) ...
>
>PPS That's my symbol for a confused guy scratching his head
>