Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00578)

Hi Wry, Dallas and all,

You (impersonal) teach or convey no meaning (and in fact retard thinking) 
when what you say is not accompanied by the message or question you are 
responding to, and/or is worded in such a way as to imply knowledge that you 
cannot or refuse to explain, or point to appropriate references that can.

Thus, to clear things up a bit, "primal cause" has a meaning only when we 
attribute it to one aspect in an endless and beginningless series of spatial 
transformations subject to cyclic law. Each phase or stage of which, from 
the standpoint of another, is an illusion -- but perfectly real when viewed 
or experienced from a standpoint within itself. 

Thus, the primal (or first) cause of this illusory or real (depending on our 
point of view) "physical" (metric space time continuum) stage or cycle of 
universal involution -- viewed from inside itself -- is its previous 
"nonphysical" state... But, there is no primal cause of the entire endless 
series of transformations -- which are "dependently arisen" simultaneously in 
the eternal NOW. 

Therefore, from the standpoint of that which is non self, the self has no 
inherent existence... And, from the standpoint of this non existent self 
(being changeless and non motional or emotional) -- what it sees or 
experiences as "not self" (being constantly changing and motional or 
emotional) is an illusion of the mind -- which is also non self... But, all 
that can also be real to the self. This is what Buddha said and what he 
meant that is perfectly clear and entirely consistent with the esoteric 
teachings of HPB -- that are timeless. However, due to the vagaries of 
language and its inconsistencies with both multidimensional geometry's and 
infinite mathematical realities, such truths can be interpreted from at least 
two and as many as seven points of view -- which leads to the different 
exoteric Buddhist, as well as Hindu schools, and confuses non intuitive 
theosophists. 

Misunderstandings of these realities or concepts come about when one feigns 
knowledge by trying to speak in vague allegories or diffused (soft white) 
light terms about things that have already been thoroughly explained in clear 
light terms. It's also important to teach that it is important to know such 
esoteric truths, as well as the importance of looking into oneself while 
meditating on the linkage between self and not self -- in order to realize 
that they cannot exist independently of each other. Thus, the non moving, 
non changing center, on, through and around which the expanding, spiraling 
circle of universal force spins, cannot stand alone or be separated. But, 
they can change places with each other in smoothly changing transitions -- 
through expansion and contraction, attraction and repulsion, or as you put 
it, grip and slip. Some Hindus might say, "It's all a matter of 'friction'" 
or, 'heat and cold'." Different strokes for different folks. It's all the 
same idea. (But, I like pictures.) 

Therefore, God, or that omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent power which 
exists in eternity as a triple entity that is simultaneously a unity can say, 
"I AM THAT I AM." And, Krishna can say, "I create this universe from one 
small part of myself, yet remain separate." Is not this "causeless cause," 
in itself, then, "the primal cause," as well as "not a primal cause" (as a 
"conditioned cause")? And could it not be considered as both empty and full, 
one and many, reality and illusion, absolute and relative, and all 
combinations in between -- depending on one's point of view? Therefore, could 
we not say, "the Absolute is relative and the Relative is absolute?"

To clarify this even further, one has only to picture the Cosmos, ideally and 
symbolically (before it breaks its symmetry and creates all its forms) as an 
infinite number of triune spheres within spheres within spheres (like bubbles 
within bubbles within bubbles) extending both inward and outward 
simultaneously -- and wherever they touch on their circumferences (where all 
the action and changes occur) is a zero-point (of inaction) that is the c
enter of a surrounding sphere -- ad infinitum. 

Is that why, on this physical plane, a particle is also a wave -- emptiness 
(as a vacuum) is also fullness (as vibrating "strings" of primal force) -- 
and, big (a particle to a geometric point) is also little (a particle to a 
planet)? And can we, then, picture our self as a point, composed of an 
infinite number of coadunate points within a sphere of infinite diameter 
composed of an infinite number of inner spheres within spheres within 
spheres, etc. -- with our body composed of a limited number of such enfolded 
spheres in a fundamentally (if we do not disturb it) harmonious octaval or 
"seven fold" arrangement -- that is connected, on the highest spiritual 
plane, to all other such seven fold entities? 

Does this not make all of us, together, many selves within one Self within 
one Cosmos? Temporary or not as each of those entities may be -- does not the 
Spirit of this Cosmos touch us at each of our zero-points of life and 
consciousness? If our bodies can touch and hug on this plane, why not our 
minds and spirits on their planes? Is this not the root law of Universal 
Brotherhood that binds us all together? Does this not give us reason to 
accept all the three objects of the Theosophical Movement in equal measure, 
and work toward fulfilling them on both individual and group levels of action?

So, you go your way, Dallas goes his, and we go ours, and none of us should 
denigrate or criticize the methods of another to arrive at the same truths 
and accomplish the same ends in view. 

That being said, let's stop beating around the bush (unless it's a burning 
one:-) and get on with it.

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

In a message dated 01/22/03 5:25:27 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>I said, "this is what happens when the skandas are understood," and what
>it was meant to be is "this is what happens when the skandas are not 
>understood."
>
>Dallas, I will try to answer your question, "How can it be contrary?" (a
>primal cause to the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism) another day. Actually,
>a brief comment now. Please try to ponder this answer if you don't understand
>it, and, of course, I could always be wrong. One simple way to think about
>this fascinating subject is to understand that the concept of a primal
>cause is an OXYMORON, as it really performs no function, except as an a
>key component in an ALLEGORY, which is understood to be such, in order
>to convey in a form that is also allegorical certain material that goes
>along with this in such a way that it fits into an organic whole and perhaps,
>AT A CERTAIN TIME in the development of humanity, regulate human behavior
>in such a way that it would be less disorderly, (as well as convey certain
>knowledge to a select few, who were educated enough to understand it).
>For man, everything starts with three, not with one, and Madame Blavatsky
>said as much when she spoke of the "elohim". not that she was an authority
>any more than I am. 
>
>Sorry about all the typos in my previous message. I spent too long writing
>this and did not have time to check it. I am a working person (believe
>it or not), and do not have time for much more of this. Wry