Re: Theos-World Correction and comment on primal cause
Jan 23, 2003 11:39 PM
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
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.
In a message dated 01/22/03 5:25:27 PM, email@example.com 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
>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
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application